Appeal No. 96-4012
Application No. 08/197,908
algorithms to code information signals. However, the Examiner
has provided no support on the record for such assertion. We
are not inclined to dispense with proof by evidence when the
proposition at issue is not supported by a teaching in a prior
art reference, common knowledge or capable of unquestionable
demonstration. Our reviewing court requires this evidence in
order to establish a prima facie case. In re Knapp-Monarch
Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re
Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
Since, for all of the reasons discussed above, we are of
the opinion that the prior art applied by the Examiner does
not support the obviousness rejection, we do not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claims 1 and 14. Therefore, we
also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 1-8 and
15-21.
In summary, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of claims 9-13 and 22-26 are sustained. The 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-8 and 14-21 is not
sustained. Accordingly, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1-26 is affirmed-in-part.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007