Appeal 2007-2374
Application 10/038,545
all of the distances in Effenberger “are measured, and none of them are
determined beforehand (i.e., predetermined)” (Br. 7).
ISSUE
Does the applied prior art teach or would it have suggested to the
skilled artisan a comparison of a measured distance value to a predetermined
reference value?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant has not challenged the Examiner’s findings that Tochio
describes all of the optical subscriber system structure and steps set forth in
claims 1 and 5, respectively, except for the station equipment judging
“whether the transmission line distance is larger or smaller than a
predetermined reference value” (Final Rejection 2).
Effenberger describes a passive optical network that determines the
distance of each optical network unit (ONU) from the central optical line
termination unit (OLT) (col. 2, ll. 36 to 39). The respective distances are
listed “in ascending order from nearest to farthest” from the OLT (i.e., the
ONU distances are compared to each other) (col. 2, ll. 52 to 54). Based on
the respective distances of the ONUs from the OLT, the ONUs communicate
with the OLT “in ascending order of nearest to farthest” (col. 3, ll. 18 to 22).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, then the burden shifts to the
Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
See Id.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013