Appeal No. 2006-0663 Page 4
Application No. 09/841,862
prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is
then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the
relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); 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).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 14, Appellants’
arguments in response to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection assert a failure to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness since all of the claimed limitations are not taught
or suggested by the applied prior art references. After careful
review of the disclosures of Forslow and Roccanova in light of
the arguments of record, we are in general agreement with the
Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer.
Initially, we agree with the Examiner (Answer, page 7) that,
Appellants’ argument (Brief, pages 5 and 6; Reply Brief, pages 2
and 3) to the contrary notwithstanding, the ordinarily skilled
artisan would have recognized that the mobile station (102,
Figure 9) of Forslow would correspond to the claimed “user
terminal,” particularly in view of the fact that Appellants have
provided no specific definition of the terminology in their
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007