Appeal No. 2003-1836 Page 12
Application No.10/085,590
The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations
including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258
F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994,
998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d
1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when
the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to 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)).
Here, we agree with the examiner's finding that Persem provides a warning that
a fault is occurring. As aforementioned, the reference notes fault conditions on its
display 80, col. 10, ll. 55-59, and denotes serious faults by activating its buzzer 84. Id.
at ll. 60-63. We find that Millet also provides a warning that a fault is occurring. As also
aforementioned, the reference displays numbers and some alpha characters to indicate
various fault codes. Col. 5, ll. 6-9. Therefore, we affirm the obviousness rejection of
claim 21.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007