Appeal No. 2005-2429 Page 4
Application No. 10/069,612
"Analysis begins with a key legal question — what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Here, independent claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
"an adjustor for adjusting a variable capacity parameter for said vocal commanding
based on said indication signal detected by said detector." Independent claims 4, 7,
and 10 include similar limitations. Accordingly, the independent claims require adjusting
a variable capacity parameter for vocal commanding based on an indication signal.
B. OBVIOUSNESS DETERMINATION
"Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious." Ex Parte Massingill, No.
2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *3 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004). "In rejecting claims
under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955,
1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'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)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007