Appeal No. 2002-0252
Application No. 08/735,159
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), which is established when
the teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in
the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531
(Fed. Cir. 1993)).
With the above understanding of the metes and bounds of the
claimed subject mater, we find that the examiner has failed to
meet his burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
We find that Mankovitz fails to teach or suggest the data service
recited in the claims. From the examiner-cited column 15, lines
41-53 of Mankovitz, it is clear that Mankovitz provides in the
vertical blanking interval (Figure 16) a data signal which may be
considered merely a data service, but there is no information
concerning this data service or any other data service in the
vertical blanking interval signal. Therefore, we conclude that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007