Appeal No. 2003-1934 Page 6
Application No. 08/821,320
2. OBVIOUSNESS DETERMINATION
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "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 itself would appear to 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)).
Here, Gibbon "compress[es] a sequence of frames having at least first and
second information-bearing media components. The sequence of frames may
constitute, for example, a video program in which the first information-bearing
component is a video component and the second information-bearing component is a
closed-caption component." Col. 2, ll. 16-22. "[A] printed rendition of . . .
representative frames and the closed-caption component may be provided. The printed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007