Appeal No. 1997-2158 Page 5
Application No. 08/234,239
We begin by noting the following principles from In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103,
the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting
a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Only if that burden is met, does the burden
of coming forward with evidence or argument shift
to the applicant. Id. "A prima facie case of
obviousness is established when the teachings from
the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary
skill in the art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782,
26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147
(CCPA 1976)). If the examiner fails to establish a
prima facie case, the rejection is improper and will
be overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5
USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
With these in mind, we analyze the appellants’ arguments.
The appellants’ argument follows.
Virus instructions, such as "Jump" instructions,
page 7, line 15 et seq., are exemplary forms of data
indicative of invalidity that can appear within
multiple unrelated programs and data files, and bear
no relationship to Francisco's unique EIDs that are
separate from and uniquely associated with a single
program. For this reason, the Examiner's
interpretation of the claimed "forms of data
indicative of invalidity" is also expressly contrary
to the definition provided in the instant
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007