Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479 Page 26
the center monitor that displays the maps and colored icons. The
examiner has not addressed the obviousness of this issue. We
therefore find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness of claim 115. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 115 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 116-118, and claim
120 (Group X) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant asserts (brief,
page 21) that neither Smart nor Williams show or suggest the
superimposition of graphics on the live video image. From our
review of Smart, we find no suggestion of this feature in Smart,
who does not disclose placing the live video on the same monitor
as the monitor having the graphics display. We are not persuaded
by the examiner's assertion (answer, page 20) that "it is
considered obvious if not inherent that some sort of video and
graphics multiplexer is required to carry out the desired
functions as claimed." We find no teaching or suggestion in
Smart to support the examiner's position. We therefore find that
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of independent claim 116, and claims 117, 118, and
120 which depend therefrom. Accordingly, the rejection of claims
116-118, and 120 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007