Appeal No. 2002-0863
Application No. 08/770,039
reference numeral 11, which energizes the Darlington circuit
configured to prevent lamp energization in the event of a battery
discharge condition. (Column 9, lines 4-27).
Control of the light via discharge management in Nishigaki
is, therefore, outside of the CPU function of the camera of
Nishigaki. Consequently, the camera CPU cannot control the second
light switch as required by instant claims 7 and 23, and the prima
facie case of obviousness is based upon an error of fact.
Where the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the
rejection is improper and will be overturned. In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We
therefore reverse this rejection.
The Rejection of Claims 10-12 and 16-18
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
As we have reversed the rejection of the claims from which
these claims depend, we likewise reverse this rejection for the
reasons enumerated above.
Summary of Decision
The rejection of claims 7-9, 13-15, 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishigaki in view of Goo and
Sakai is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007