Appeal No. 1999-0864 Page 10
Application No. 08/757,550
environmental image according to conditions detected by said
circumstance detection.” Therefore, we reverse the rejection
of claims 1, 3, 4, 15-17, 19-25, 28-31, and 35 as anticipated
by Yamanaka. We proceed to the obviousness rejections.
II. Obviousness Rejections of Claims 5, 6, 12-14, 18,
26, 27, and 32-34
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
rejections and the appellant’s arguments regarding the
following claims:
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007