Appeal No. 2004-0515
Application No. 09/400,960
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of appealed claims 1 and 2, Appellant asserts that the Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since
all of the claimed limitations are not taught or suggested by the
applied prior art reference. In particular, Appellant contends
(Brief, pages 3-5) that the applied Rasky reference does not
teach or suggest the claimed feature of “examining whether a
satisfactory result will be obtained, if the set of parameters
for decoding the coded data is applied for decoding the coded
modified data.”
After reviewing the arguments of record from Appellant and
the Examiner, we are in general agreement with Appellant’s
position as stated in the Brief. Although the Examiner asserts
(Answer, page 3) that, in Rasky, a decision is made in soft
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007