Appeal 2007-0036
Application 10/699,452
Buford teaches an autonomous service request generated at a
predefined moment in time, the predefined moment in time comprising a
“periodic instant” (col. 17, ll. 63-65). Buford teaches sending successive
requests with a “given time” between each one (col. 17, l. 65).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
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 forward with evidence or argument
shift to the Appellants. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See
also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the Examiner
must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence
of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are
deemed to support the Examiner’s conclusion.
Our reviewing court states that “claims must be interpreted as broadly
as their terms reasonably allow.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Our reviewing court further states that “the
words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary
meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 75 USPQ2d 1321,
1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)(internal citations omitted). The “ordinary
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013