Appeal No. 2002-2177 Page 12
Application No. 08/777,424
display portion for displaying said plurality of input image data, a second display portion
for displaying layout images laid out by said automatic layout unit, and a third display
portion for expressing the intention input by said intention input unit, and concurrently
performs display operations of said first to third display portions. . . ." Giving the claim
its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require that an image editing
device concurrently display a window showing image data inputted to the device, a
window showing images as laid out by an automatic layout unit of the device, and a
window allowing a user to input data reflecting his intentions.
2. Obviousness Determination
"In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781,
783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007