Appeal No. 1997-0197
Application No. 08/195,676
The Examiner has further argued the functional
equivalence of resolution reduction and size reduction by
asserting the end result of reduced data to represent an image
in both cases. However, even assuming arguendo that this was
correct, such a position does not address the question of the
obviousness of choosing one approach instead of the other.
The Examiner’s conclusion (Answer, page 4) that the skilled
artisan would have found it obvious to reduce the resolution
of an image instead of the size or magnification in Sakai
since both approaches result
in total data reduction of a displayed image is totally
without support on the record. 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 all of the claim limitations are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art, it is our opinion that the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007