Appeal No. 2001-1185
Application No. 08/915,597 Page 5
657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore
Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
These showings by the examiner are an essential part of complying
with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10,
11, and 13 based on the teachings of Sowles considered with
Hatano. Appellants present three basic arguments. It is
asserted (brief, pages 4 and 5) that Sowles fails to disclose or
suggest "said gateway station ... being further operative to pass
messages to and from said user terminal through said alternative
earth station while acting as said gateway into said terrestrial
communication system" as required by claim 1. Appellant further
asserts (brief, pages 6 and 7) that in Hatano, mobile stations 14
do not act as gateways. It is additionally asserted (brief, page
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007