Appeal No. 2002-1474 Page 5
Application No. 09/002,927
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). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (answer, page 4) is that Furuya is
directed to a vehicular navigation system, but does not disclose
that the receiver 101 receives vehicle information in the form of
image data. To overcome this deficiency in Furuya, the examiner
turns to Liebesny for a teaching of the use of spotters and video
cameras (17) for receiving vehicle information in the form of
image data. The examiner asserts (id.) with respect to each of
independent claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 18, 24, and 27 that it would
have been obvious “to utilized receivers for capturing vehicle
information in an image form as taught by Liebesny et al. in a
system as disclosed by Furuya in order to capture the traffic
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007