Appeal No. 97-0181
Application No. 08/245,613
that we find that the Examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. That is, the Examiner's analysis, if left unrebutted, would be sufficient to
support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The burden is, therefore, upon appellants to
come forward with evidence or arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima
facie case of obviousness. Appellants have presented several substantive arguments in
response to the Examiner's rejection. Therefore, we consider obviousness based upon
the totality of the evidence and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments.
We find that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness
concerning claim limitations and the motivation for skilled artisans to combine the prior art
references applied against the various claims. The appellants have responded to the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness in the reply brief asserting that the individual
references and the combination of references do not teach or suggest the resolution of “an
ambiguity as to order of complementary pixel portions.” (See reply brief at page 2.)
Appellants assert that the use of the term “ambiguous” in claim 22 is in accordance with its
ordinary dictionary definition where the magnitude value is already determined or known
but there is uncertainty as to the two possible orders of the complementary values which
total 100 percent of the pixel. (See reply
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007