Appeal No. 1998-3064 Page 5
Application No. 08/445,867
arguments of the appellants and examiner. After considering
the totality of the record, we are persuaded that the examiner
erred in rejecting claims 2 and 4-12. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We begin by noting three principles from In re Rijckaert,
9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). (1)
In rejecting claims under § 103, the patent examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. (2) A prima facie case is established when
teachings from the prior art would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in
the art. (3) If the examiner fails to establish a prima facie
case, an obviousness rejection will be reversed. With these
in mind, we analyze the appellants’ arguments.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-12, the appellants make several
related arguments. They argue, “neither reference provides
addresses to the segment drive circuits identified by the
Examiner ....” (Appeal Br. at 8.) The appellants add the
following argument.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007