Appeal No. 2002-1427
Application No. 08/667,459
image signals can also be the reference camera (id.). The
Examiner specifically states that:
Therefore, the camera in Parulski is the prior art that
actually teaches the reference camera is the first camera to
obtain the preset values and the camera is also the same
camera used at a different time in which the values are
produced according to the reference values previously
stored. [Emphasis added.]
(Id.).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
basis supported by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to
be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner must not only
identify the elements in the prior art, but also show “some
objective teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art would lead the
individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references.”
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007