Appeal No. 2003-0435
Application No. 09/263,921
determining a plurality of candidate blocks and then averaging all of the
candidate blocks to produce a best match.
Having determined the scope of the relative potions of the claims we next
turn to the rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103. It is the burden of the
examiner to establish why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to the claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by the implication contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
Sernaker 702 F2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “Additionally,
when determining obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
whole; there is no legally recognizable “heart’ of the invention.” Para-Ordnance
MFG. V SGS Importers Int’l Inc., 73 F3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. Garlock, Inc., 721 F2d 1540,
1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
The examiner states on page 5 of the answer that “[m]eans for averaging
the best match candidates to produce a computed best match is not explicitly
provided by Greenfield et al., but is conventional and well known, and is provided
by Wang et al.” Further on page 8 of the answer the examiner states that it is
desirable to perform averaging “ for at least the reason that such a combination
can provide for a ‘block having the least error.’”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007