Appeal No. 2004-1063
Application No. 09/273,385
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 which would lead
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).
With regard to independent claim 1, the examiner contends
that White discloses a method of controlling a processor based
system in the abstract and column 1, lines 30-60; that White
discloses the displaying of a plurality of selectable options in
Figures 4A and 4B, the abstract, and column 2, lines 50-68; that
White discloses consecutively indicating selection options at
column 5, lines 12-30, column 6, lines 32-68, column 7, lines 1-
13, and column 8, lines 1-30.
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007