Appeal 2007-0834
Application 09/757,913
(Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148
USPQ 459, 467 (1966). “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review
of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Furthermore, “‘there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. ___, 2007 WL 1237837, at *14 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988,
78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
We begin our analysis by noting that in the rejection of claims 1 and
12, the Examiner asserts that Chen teaches the limitations argued by
Appellants (i.e., “stopping the context information updating …” and “taking
a snapshot of the compression and decompression context information …” )
(see Answer 4; see also claim 1). However, when we look to the Examiner’s
rejection for specific citations for these argued limitations, there are none
(Answer 4, ¶ 1). In responding to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner
asserts that Chen inherently teaches “stopping the context information
updating” as claimed (see Answer 16). Likewise, the Examiner asserts that
Chen inherently teaches “taking a snapshot of the compression and
decompression context information,” as claimed. (See Answer 18, ¶ 2: 8-10,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013