Appeal No. 2001-2110
Application No. 09/095,462
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential part
of complying with the 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).
We consider first the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 25, 28, 29, 32, and 33 based on the combination of Secor,
Blessinger, and Jones. With respect to each of the appealed
independent claims 25, 28, and 32, Appellants’ response to the
obviousness rejection asserts a failure by the Examiner to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness since proper motivation
for the Examiner’s proposed combination of references has not been
set forth. In particular, Appellants contend (Brief, page 5; Reply
Brief, page 2), that the Examiner has established no motivation for
the skilled artisan to modify the vehicle camera system of Secor to
provide a forward view of the vehicle’s surroundings in addition to
Secor’s disclosed side and rear views.
After reviewing the arguments of record from both Appellants
and the Examiner, we are in general agreement with Appellants’
position as stated in the Briefs. We find no evidence provided by
the Examiner to support the assertion (Office action, paper no. 11)
that “. . . it is considered quite obvious to simply change the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007