Appeal No. 2001-1230
Application No. 08/759,346
captured by the wide field of view than the image captured
by the wide field of view imager.”
(answer, page 15).
The Examiner relies on the characterization of the cameras of
Holeva as having wide and narrow fields of view and points out
that the narrow field of view imager 110 focuses on the label on
a package and generates a high resolution image (answer, pages 15
and 16).
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, 148 USPQ 459 (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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007