Appeal No. 2004-1996
Application No. 09/399,606
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
We have carefully reviewed the evidence of record, including the arguments of
appellant and the examiner, in this case and we conclude that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed subject
matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, a “detection means...for detecting an
occurrence or non-occurrence of a supply of power to the power supply output means.
It is the examiner’s view that Chang meets this claimed limitation by “microprocessor
109 which senses the power status of the TV/VCR (col 5, line 4-17), where
microprocessor 109 provides voltage control signals to the monitor via monitor power
control section 107 and standby state power control section 108" (answer-page 4). In
addition, the examiner points to lines 29-33 of Chang’s claim 1 (column 6, lines 11-12),
for a disclosure of “a microprocessor for sensing the power conditions of said TV/VCR
set...” (answer-page 10).
While we understand why the examiner would focus on this recitation in Chang, a
closer reading of the reference leads to the conclusion that the microprocessor 109
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007