Appeal No. 2002-2232
Application 09/174,032
However, the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
basis to deny patentability to a claimed invention, regardless
of the ground, rests with the examiner. See In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The
examiner has not shown where the claimed requirement of an on-
line system is present. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. Section
102(e) requires that "each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a
single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil
Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
Consequently, we must reverse this rejection.
The Rejection of Claims 31 and 32 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rokunohe in view of Sedding. More
specifically, the examiner has found that Sedding discloses
detecting high frequency pulses in the surrounding atmosphere
within said selected frequency range, and subtracting said
signals detected from said pulses for the purpose of eliminating
the need for expert interpretation (Examiner’s Answer, page 6,
lines 8-12).
This finding of the examiner is incorrect. Although
Sedding bemoans the expense of an expert to interpret discharge
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007