Appeal No. 1997-0201
Application No. 08/140,318
reasonably lead to the conclusion that, in a given cycle, data
from only even or odd columns are processed, rather than being
multiplexed as claimed. 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).
Accordingly, since all of the limitations are not taught
or suggested by the prior art, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of independent claims 7 and 8, nor of
claims 11 and 13 dependent thereon. Dependent claims 9 and 10
also contain the limitations regarding the multiplexing of odd
and even pixel columns and we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of these claims as well.
In summary, we have sustained the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 4-6, 12, and 14, but have not sustained
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 7-11, and 13
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007