Appeal No. 2002-2169 Page 18
Application No. 09/163,286
"'[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected,
is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the
game is the claim. . . .'" In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, The Extent of the Protection and
Interpretation of Claims --American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright
L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Here, besides a theodolite, claim 2 specifies in pertinent part
the following limitations: "a navigation computer disposed within the satellite navigation
receiver and connected to receive a target-position seed value related to said distant
target; and a servo actuator connected to mechanically manipulate the theodolite in
azimuth and elevation; wherein, the navigation computer is connected to the servo
actuator and provides a signal that will preposition the theodolite. . . ."
"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 . . . 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)).
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007