Appeal No. 2000-0141 Page 7
Application No. 08/673,693
additional bandwidth to an area of a display in which a user
is most interested.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed,
the next inquiry is whether the subject matter is anticipated
or obvious. “In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103,
the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima
facie case of obviousness.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing 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)).
Furthermore, “[t]o establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence
‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is
necessarily present in the thing described in the reference,
and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007