Appeal No. 2006-1204
Application No. 10/379,006
and the load; and a controller for selecting one of the plurality
of impedances to reduce the impedance mismatch in response to the
signal.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 9-11, 13, 14, 22, 24, 25, 50 and 55 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Mooney.
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 40
and 45 as Being Unpatentable over Mooney Proper?
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007