Appeal No. 2002-1448
Application 09/067,321
limitations recited in Appellants’ claims because storing a
control code is the most efficient way to enable or disable the
application with an operation. See page 5 of the Examiner’s
answer.
As noted above, our reviewing court requires the requisite
findings based upon the evidence of record. It is the Examiner’s
burden of showing the objective teachings in the prior art. We
note that the Examiner has not pointed to any objective teachings
in the prior art for support for why one of ordinary skill in the
art would make the modification to the Elliot graphical system.
Without the necessary evidence, we find that the Examiner has not
met the burden of coming forward with the evidence of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007