Appeal 2007-2458
Application 10/006,577
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 (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.
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the claim but can
take into account the inferences and the creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007).
The claims on appeal should not be confined to specific embodiments
described in the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). During ex parte prosecution, claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow since Applicants have
the power during the administrative process to amend the claims to avoid the
prior art. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
ANALYSIS
Appellant has argued that the timing control in Fukuda is made to
synchronize with the receipt of the control signal. We agree, but do not find
this to be distinguishing, when compared to the text of the independent
claims. Claims 1 and 6 recite “an ON state indication signal,” claim 3
recites “power-ON information,” and claim 9 recites “a signal from a base
station for switching to be in an ON state.” These recitations are not the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013