Appeal No. 2001-0374
Application No. 08/971,255
transiently displayed is absent in Nagai and asserts that
Pitchaikani discloses such user selection as steps 508 and 510 in
Figure 5 (id.). The Examiner further relies on the user
selection of reset button 312 in pop-up window 300 in Figure 3 of
Pitchaikani (answer, page 13) and concludes that the window is
displayed in a transient manner as the user selection [of reset]
dismisses the window and permits its display for a selected
period of time (answer, page 14).
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). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
basis supported by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to
be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner must not only
identify the elements in the prior art, but also show “some
objective teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art would lead the
individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007