Appeal No. 1995-3030 Page 6
Application No. 08/073,091
We also note 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. Section 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)).
With these principles in mind, we consider the rejections
relying on Korsinsky and the rejections relying on Piosenka.
I. Rejections Relying on Korsinsky
The examiner alleges, "the computer in conjunction with
handwriting division unit and dictation division unit
(elements 10 and 12 in figure 1) merges the respective results
of the units." (Examiner's Answer at 12.) The appellants
argue, "[i]n contradistinction to the system of Korsinsky ...
each of the independent claims of the instant patent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007