Appeal No. 2004-1828
Application No. 09/094,949
“Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary” (Microsoft
Dictionary), Third edition, 1997, p. 387.
Claims 85-88, 90-93, 95-98 and 100 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kohda and Cespedes.
Claims 89, 94 and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kohda and Cespedes and further in view
of Microsoft Dictionary.
Claims 85-88, 90-93, 95-98 and 100 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kohda and Harvey.
Claims 89, 94 and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kohda and Harvey and further in view
of Microsoft Dictionary.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 25, mailed
October 24, 2003) for the Examiner’s reasoning and to the appeal
brief (Paper No. 24, filed June 27, 2003) and to the reply brief
(Paper No. 26, filed December 24, 2003) for Appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We initially note that in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore,
in considering the question of the obviousness of the claimed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007