Appeal No. 1996-1387 Page 7
Application No. 08/110,269
Next, we note that in rejecting claims under § 103, the
patent examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness. A prima facie case is
established when the teachings from the prior art would appear
to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. If the examiner fails to establish
a prima facie case, an obviousness rejection will be
overturned. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With this in mind, we address
claims 1, 5, 6, 15, 25, and 26; claims 2-4; claims 7 and 8;
claims 12-14; claim 16; claims 17 and 18; claims 19 and 21;
claim 20; claim 22; claim 23; and claim 24 seriatim.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 15, 25, and 26
Regarding claim 1, the appellant makes three arguments
attacking the combination of Majima and Naemura. First, he
argues that the examiner’s reason for combining the references
“is incorrect in its facts.” (Appeal Br. at 8.) The examiner
replies, “the appellant's argument is not persuasive because
as described by Naemura, a response time is improved due to
the shutter ....” (Examiner’s Answer at 8.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007