Appeal No. 2004-0716 Page 5
Application No. 09544,275
Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed.
Cir. 1985); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d
1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings
by the examiner are an essential part of complying with the
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Turning to claim 1, the examiner's position (answer, pages
3-5) is that Sawyer teaches all the limitations of claim 1,
including the limitation of detecting an on-hold condition, and
means responsive to the detection of an on-hold condition. The
examiner argues that because Sawyer discloses providing minimal
bandwidth when the parties to a call are silent, detecting an on-
hold condition and providing a minimal bandwidth during periods
of on-hold would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art. The examiner also argues (answer, page 9) that because
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007