Appeal No. 1998-2990
Application No. 08/433,642
pattern and Endo may teach drawing additional patterns on a
screen, neither reference teaches or suggests how to process
the data in regions defined by these additional patterns”
(reply brief, page 2). We agree. The examiner’s “circular”
reasoning lacks supporting evidence as well as a discussion of
how non-circular images are to be processed by the combined
teachings of Poulsen and Endo. Since “there is no suggestion
to combine Endo’s pattern drawing technique with Poulsen’s
device” (brief, page 5), the examiner has failed to present a
prima facie case of obviousness. As a result thereof, the 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 through 6, 8 through 12,
15, 16, 21 through 26 and 28 through 31 is reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 7, 13, 14, 17
through 20 and 27 are likewise reversed because the teachings
of Lee and Shiraishi fail to cure the noted shortcoming in the
teachings of Poulsen and Endo.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007