Appeal No. 1996-3356
Application No. 08/235,668
time the invention was made in the art.” (See supplemental answer at page 10.) We
disagree with the examiner’s conclusion.
With respect to appellants’ argument that the sensors read in signals only during
every second or fourth output periods, the examiner points out that the express limitation
is not found in independent claim 1. We agree with the examiner, but do find the varied
read-in period is adequately set forth in independent claim 1 and is not found in the prior
art to Hartford. The examiner assumes that the limitation is set forth in the language of
claim 1 and maintains that the teaching of Hartford regarding the independent control of
sampling would have suggested or obviously implied the variation of the sampling to
improve efficiency and it would have been within the practicing skills for the practitioner.
(See answer at page 11.) Again, we disagree with the examiner and find that the
examiner has not supported the conclusion with adequate teachings in Hartford.
When determining obviousness, "the [E]xaminer can satisfy the burden of showing
obviousness of the combination `only by showing some objective teaching in the
prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would
lead that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references'.” In re Lee,
277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002), citing In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992). "Broad conclusory
statements regarding the teaching of multiple references, standing alone, are not
‘evidence.’" In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007