Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 14
Application No. 08/812,222
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the limitations in the applied prior art. “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)). “If
examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima
facie case of unpatentability, then without more the
applicant is entitled to grant of the patent.” Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444 (citing In re Grabiak,
769 F.2d 729, 733, 226 USPQ 870, 873 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and
In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976)).
Here, Buzak teaches that “[c]olumn electrodes 18 receive
data drive signals of the analog voltage type developed on
parallel output conductors 22' by different ones of the output
amplifiers 22 (FIGS. 2-6) of a data driver or drive drive
[sic] circuit 24, and channels 20 receive data strobe signals
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007