Appeal No. 1998-1088 Page 5
Application No. 08/523,809
Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and evidence of
the appellant and examiner. After considering the record, we
are persuaded that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1
and 3-5. Accordingly, we reverse.
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. 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 examiner's
rejection and the appellant's argument.
The examiner makes the following allegation.
[A]s one of ordinary skill in the art views the
admitted prior art of Figure 4, the figure itself
suggests a projection screen unit which includes a
lenticular lens system and a screen protection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007