Appeal No. 2003-0796
Application No. 09/260,031
and does not generate any interpolation data to be used by a
texture processing circuit in dividing the coordinates of a
texture included in that interpolation data (brief, page 10 and
oral hearing).
In response, the Examiner asserts that “mathematical
circuitry for performing mathematical functions in the texture
processing circuit” is disclosed by Hannah (answer, page 4). The
Examiner further reasons that modifying the mathematical
circuitry of Hannah to perform various mathematical functions
other than addition would have been obvious (id.).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
basis supported by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to
be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Such
evidence is required in order to establish a prima facie case.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984). However, “the Board must not only assure that
the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007