Appeal No. 1997-3145 Page 6
Application No. 08/058,199
USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an essential
part 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). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to
the applicants to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (final rejection , page 2) is1
that Hama does not teach:
a) displaying the target area and the enlarged
display of the target area over an original view of
the target area; and
1Incorporated by reference into the examiner's answer for both the
rejection of the claims and the examiner's response to the arguments set forth
in the brief (answer, pages 3 and 4).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007