Appeal No. 2001-1073
Application No. 08/747,356
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief (paper no. 13) and the
Examiner’s answer (paper no. 14) for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the Examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
Appellant's arguments set forth in the brief.
We reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1446,
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)).
In forming a prima facie case in accordance with the above
guidelines, the Examiner at page 4 of the answer admits that
Peterson does not explicitly teach the claimed edit-time display
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007