Appeal No. 1998-0871
Application No. 08/406,301
falling together and we will treat claim 7 as a representative claim of that group. Turning first to
the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, appellants assert (brief, page 5) that Lim does not
disclose a tuner, and that the prior art, singly or in combination, would not suggest adding a tuner that is
integrated by switching means which are connected to the tuner, the VCR and the projector for
selecting a projection function without a jack between the projector means and either of the VCR or
the tuner (brief, page 7). The examiner agrees (answer, page 2) that Lim does not specify the tuner.
However, the examiner asserts (answer, page 6) that Lim in fact discloses switching means (55b)
except that instead of selecting a video signal from a tuner, the switching means selects a video signal
from a camera. The examiner additionally asserts (final rejection, page 5) that since all of the video
parts in Lim are in one housing, there is no jack connection between the projector and either of the
VCR or tuner.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993). In meeting this burden, the examiner is required to establish why one having ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to the claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or suggestions. See In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
(5)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007