Appeal No. 2004-0927 Page 8
Application No. 09/399,064
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 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, the examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Archibald
cures the aforementioned deficiency of Ginter. Absent a teaching or suggestion of a
computer implemented tool for authoring content, we are unpersuaded of a prima facie
case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 2-5,
12-14, 20, 21, 26-29, and 35-38.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 6-11, 15-19, 22-25, 30-34, and 39-42
under § 102(e) is reversed. The rejection of claims 2-5, 12-14, 20, 21, 26-29, and 35-38
under § 103(a) is also reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007