Appeal No. 1998-1339
Application 08/024,305
scanning patterns and producing respective coded
signals; and
a selector receiving said coded signal for
selecting one of said scanning patterns based upon a
predetermined sub-block selection criterion and for
outputting a scanning pattern signal identifying the
selected scanning pattern and said selected coded
signal.
Opinion
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8-17 cannot be
sustained. We reverse.
A reversal of any rejection on appeal should not be
construed as an affirmative indication that the appellants’
claims are patentable over prior art. We address only the
sufficiency of the findings and rationale as set forth by the
examiner and on which the examiner’s rejection is based.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In
so doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why
one with ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007