Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
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 a teaching in a prior art reference or shown
to be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our
reviewing court requires this evidence 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). The examiner must
identify the elements in the prior art or that knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that
would have led the individual to combine the relevant teachings
of the references. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
As to independent claims 1 and 23, the examiner applies
Igarashi as follows:
Column 3, lines 38-41, is said to “clearly” show the
reception of interlaced video data.
Figure 3 is said to “clearly” show the detection of motion
in blocks 21 and 22.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007