Appeal No. 1998-1386 Page 23
Application No. 08/269,156
comprise character hypotheses corresponding to received data.
The absence of the disclosure negates anticipation. Therefore,
we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 6, 8, 12, 14-17, and 21
as anticipated by Fujisaki. Next, we address the obviousness
of claim 9 over Fujisaki in view of Guyon.
Obviousness of Claim 9 over Fujisaki in view of Guyon
We begin by noting the following principles from In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
If the examiner fails to establish a prima facie
case, the rejection is improper and will be
overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5
USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Like claims 1, 6, and 8, claim 9 recites simultaneously
considering character shape and context information and also
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007