Appeal No. 1998-0818
Application No. 08/319,143
shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration.
Our reviewing court requires this evidence in order to
establish a prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1471-72, 223 USPQ 785,
787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); 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). Furthermore, our
reviewing court states in In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) the following:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1 (1966), focused on the procedural and
evidentiary processes in reaching a conclusion under
Section 103. As adapted to ex parte procedure,
Graham is interpreted as continuing to place the
"burden of proof on the Patent Office which requires
it to produce the factual basis for its rejection of
an application under section 102 and 103". Citing
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1020, 154 USPQ 173, 177
(CCPA 1967).
Nonetheless, we find that Chen fails to teach or suggest
using any one of the specifically defined coded phase filters
defined on page 15 of the specification or that the amplitude
filter has a transmissivity which increases along radial lines
from a central portion. As stated above, we find that Chen
teaches a system to remove aberrations from an image which
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007