Appeal No. 1997-1632 Page 9
Application No. 08/138,555
part the following limitations: “a receiver for receiving electromagnetic radio frequency
signals. . . .” Accordingly, the independent claims require using a RF transmission.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter is obvious. “In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section
103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992)). "’A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the
prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person
of ordinary skill in the art.’" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976)). “It is fundamental that rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must be based on
evidence comprehended by the language of that section.” In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d
731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re McKellin, 529 F.2d 1324,
1329, 188 USPQ 428, 433 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, claims 1 and 2 of Larson alone lack any indication of using a RF
transmission. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of independent claims 45, 68, 73,
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007