Appeal No. 1997-3909
Application 08/430,090
presented with respect to claim 10 (reply brief-page 16). As
we stated supra, we find at least as much means and function
in the applied references as identified by Applicant in his
own specification. Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 16, and likewise claim 17 which stands or 3
falls in the same group.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why
one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
the claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or
suggestions found in the prior art, or by a reasonable
inference to the artisan contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
In addition, the Federal Circuit reasons in Para-Ordnance Mfg.
v. SGS Importers (Fed. Cir. 1995), 73 F.3d 1085, 1087-88, 37
USPQ2d 1237, 1239-40, that for the determination of
obviousness, the court must answer whether one of ordinary
skill in the art who sets out to solve the problem, and who
3We note that in passing claim 17 lacks antecedent basis
for “the means for fast forwarding”.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007