Appeal No. 2001-0860
Application No. 08/772,047
The initial burden of establishing reasons for
unpatentability rests on the Examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner
must produce a factual basis supported by teaching in a prior art
reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable
demonstration, consistent with the holding in Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). 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); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72
(CCPA 1966). However, “the Board must not only assure that the
requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed
to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Our review of Speech confirms that the reference relates to
speech-enabled applications that are available off the shelf.
One example of such products is identified as Visual Voice which
is a development tool using an object-oriented flow-chart
development system (page 243). Speech further refers to Speech
Wizard as a tool for adding speech input to Windows programs and
to Phonetic Engine 500 (PE500) as a speech system that may also
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007