Appeal No. 2001-0530
Application No. 08/828,484
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
“To reject claims in an application under section 103, an examiner must show an
unrebutted prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1557,
34 USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the absence of a proper prima facie case
of obviousness, an applicant who complies with the other statutory requirements is
entitled to a patent. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima
facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” In re Rouffet, 149
F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, we disagree with the
examiner’s rejection and find that appellant has overcome the prima facie case of
obviousness by showing insufficient evidence by the examiner in the rejection of the
prima facie case of obviousness which persuades us of the nonobviousness of the
claimed invention.
Appellant argues that Okanoue teaches and uses the term “gateway node” in the
reference, but the language of independent claim 1 recites “gateway computer.” (See
brief at pages 5-6.) Appellant argues that there is no correspondence of the node to
the gateway computer which is a multifunction computer which is capable of operation
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007