Appeal No. 2002-1468
Application 09/038,219
Throughout our opinion, we make reference to the briefs1 and
the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 through 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Appellants point out that Appellants’ claims require a
random value source and a temporal dither value source.
Appellants argue that no such structure is taught or suggested by
Shimazaki and Lum. See pages 4 through 5 of the brief and the
reply brief.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
1 Appellants filed a brief on February 1, 2001. Appellants
filed a reply brief on May 7, 2001. The Examiner mailed out an
office communication on May 31, 2001, stating that the reply
brief has been entered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007