Appeal No. 2006-2284 Page 6
Application No. 09/912,211
Here, claim 23 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
a set of objects for object presence detection internal to said
container, such that an object of said set of objects is operable to modify
said transmitted signal energy of a selected frequency to generate said
received signal energy of said selected frequency. . . .
Claim 42 includes similar limitations. Considering all the limitations, both independent
claims require that an object such as a tape cartridge modifies an interrogation signal
transmitted at a selected frequency to generate a return signal having the same
frequency.
2. 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 (B.P.A.I 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
30, 2005. The former brief will not be considered in deciding this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013