Appeal No. 2002-1114
Application No. 09/154,100
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
For claims 1-3 and 6, Appellants argue that none of the
references teaches a method that would allow a base station to
use channels for more than one channel group. See page 8 of the
brief and page 2-3 of the reply brief.
We note that Appellants' claim 1 does require the use of
channels from more than one channel group. In particular,
Appellants' claim 1 recites "under a second set of operational
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007