Appeal No. 1997-3206
Application No. 08/350,274
demonstration. Precedent of 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).
It is further our view that, even assuming, arguendo, the
correctness of the Examiner’s assertion as to the ability of a
skilled artisan to deduce order of instruction execution from
Brown, such fact alone does not address the obviousness with
respect to the specific limitations of appealed independent
claims 1, 12, and 23. Each of claims 1, 12, and 23 recites
the specific presentation of displayed software code
instructions on a display device along with an integrated
visual indication of the progressive sequence of execution of
the displayed instructions. The Examiner has provided no
indication as to how and where the skilled artisan might have
found it obvious to modify the teachings of Brown to arrive at
the claimed invention. Accordingly, since the Examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness, the
rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 23, and claims 2-11
and 13-22 dependent thereon, is not sustained.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007