Appeal No. 1999-2413
Application No. 08/754,203
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).
With respect to independent claims 43 and 44, the Examiner, as
the initial basis for the obviousness rejection, proposes to modify
the endoscope system disclosure of Karasawa with the image
processing teachings of Eino which describe the transformation of a
raw image into a turned and/or inverted image for easier viewing on
a display. In the Examiner’s analysis (Answer, page 4), the
skilled artisan would have been motivated and found it obvious to
apply the raw image transforming teachings of Eino to the system of
Karasawa, thereby arriving at Appellants’ invention as claimed.
After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis, it is our view that
such analysis provides an indication of the teachings of the
Karasawa and Eino references, reasonably indicates the perceived
differences between this prior art and the claimed invention, and
provides reasons as to how and why the prior art teachings would
have been modified and/or combined to arrive at the claimed
invention. In our opinion, the Examiner's analysis is sufficiently
reasonable that we find that the Examiner has at least satisfied
the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. The
burden is, therefore, upon Appellants to come forward with evidence
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007