Appeal No. 2005-0435
Application No. 09/359,523
In response, the Examiner asserts that the table memory of
Takakura is actually substituted for the gain-control circuits of
Tamura causing the color differences to be adjusted and compared
to the threshold values (answer, page 4). The Examiner reasons
that since adjusting the signal requires changing or incrementing
the entry address for a new correction value in the table memory,
it is the same as the claimed “modifying the values in the look-
up table” (answer, page 5).
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). The Examiner must not only identify
the elements in the prior art, but also show “some objective
teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally available
to one of ordinary skill in the art 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). The
court further reasons in Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Gulf
Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1385, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
that for an invention to be obvious in view of a combination of
references, there must be some suggestion, motivation, or
teaching in the prior art that would have led a person of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007