Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
indicated how and why Haney and Appel or Haney and Frazer
would have been modified and/or combined to arrive at the
claimed invention [answer, pages 3-5]. In our view, the
examiner’s analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we find
that the examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. That is, the examiner’s
analysis, if left unrebutted, would be sufficient to support a
rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103. The burden is, therefore, upon appellant to
come forward with evidence or arguments which persuasively
rebut the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant has presented several substantive arguments in
response to the examiner’s rejection. Therefore, we consider
obviousness based upon the totality of the evidence and the
relative persuasiveness of the arguments.
We note that Haney teaches a computer for generating
character animation by combining prestored images of an object
with the actual movements of an actor. The prestored images
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007