Appeal No. 95-4414
Application 08/143,007
or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Uniroyal Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v.
Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an essential part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to each of claims 1, 5 and 14, the examiner
basically finds that Bovik teaches all of the claimed features
except for the switch operating in the claimed manner. The
examiner notes that Bovik discloses a switch, and the examiner
reasons that it would have been obvious to the artisan to modify
Bovik to use the switch as claimed [answer, pages 11-13]. On the
other hand, appellant argues that 1) Bovik is not related to
predicting subjective image quality; 2) there is nothing in Bovik
to suggest operating on a processed image as well as a reference
image; 3) there is no generation in Bovik of variation loss
information regarding the percentage of blocks of the processed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007