Appeal No. 2003-1328
Application No. 09/007,493
an HTML editor with formatting controls that allow a user to
manually edit an HTML web page (brief, page 6). Additionally,
Appellants assert that Tyler is silent with regard to the
problems associated with various alignment conditions between
hypertext links and cannot suggest the modification necessary for
adjusting the display position based on the determined positions
(brief, page 8 and reply brief, page 2).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that Appellants’ claims do not specify whether the process is
automated or performed manually (answer, page 6). The Examiner
concludes that the claims read on the manual editing performed by
the user in Tyler (id.).
Initially, we note that in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, it is the Examiner who 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). Furthermore, in considering the question of the
obviousness of the claimed invention in view of the prior art
relied upon, the Examiner is expected to make the factual
determination set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why one
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007