Appeal No. 1998-0922
Application No. 08/386,862
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claims 5, 16, 17, and 18, the
Examiner, as the basis for the obviousness rejection, proposes
to modify the video tape recorder (VTR) disclosure of
Kikutani. In the Examiner’s analysis (Answer, page 4),
Kikutani discloses a video tape recorder in a unified
structure with a camera and a monitor, but lacks any
disclosure of the specific claimed structural orientation of
the monitor and VTR substrates. This structural orientation
of the monitor and VTR substrates is recited in appealed claim
5 as “integrally sandwiched between said monitor portion and
said VTR portion” and further that the monitor driving
substrate is “substantially parallel to a display surface of
said liquid crystal display device.” Despite the admitted
lack of disclosure of these features in Kikutani, the Examiner
nevertheless suggests the obviousness to the skilled artisan
of modifying Kikutani to arrive at such structural arrangement
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007