Appeal No. 2003-1858
Application No. 09/073,871
capture frames of the video stream while the monitor displays
video images (brief, page 6). Appellants further point to
column 3, lines 4-11 of Shipp and assert that the disclosed
“frame grabber” in the reference merely allows the surgeon to
electronically grab a frame from the video stream without
detecting change over from one still image to another (brief,
page 7). Appellants further point out that without such
detection, the system cannot automatically synchronize the change
over from one still image to another with the audio recording
(brief, page 8; oral hearing).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that Shipp discloses still images displayed on the monitor in a
live presentation since the surgeon can capture a still image and
can dictate pertinent information related to the image (answer,
page 11). The Examiner further relies on the voice command of
Shipp which is used to grab a frame to be stored and reasons that
the reference suggests detecting the change over from one still
image to another when a voice command is received (id.).
As a general proposition, 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) and In re Fine,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007