Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479 Page 6
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 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).
We turn first to claims 98, 121-125 and 128 (Group I).
Claims 98, 121, 123-125 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Smart in view of Williams. The examiner adds
Clever for claims 122 and 1281. We refer to the answer (pages 4-
7) for the examiner's findings with respect to the teachings of
Smart. The examiner's position (answer, page 8) is that Smart
does not disclose control means for activating or deactivating an
output device (e.g. clock or door) by the operator to control a
security function of the output device from the graphical image.
To overcome this deficiency in Smart, the examiner states (id.)
that the "concept of activating or deactivating an output device
1 Appellant has not separately argued the Clever reference, and has
indicated (brief, page 8) that these claims rise or fall with claim 98.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007