Appeal No. 2000-1502 Page 6
Application No. 08/643,597
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed,
the next inquiry is whether the subject matter is obvious.
“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 Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing 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, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, although Zabele uses an overlay to designate a
defect in an image displayed on a monitor, it does not do so
by framing the specific portion of the image that contains the
defect. To the contrary, we agree with the appellants that
“Zabele superimposes (overlays) two images (see col. 11, lines
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007