Appeal No. 2005-0444
Application No. 10/025,671
Hyatt merely fills pixels between a prior edge and the next edge
of a moving surface based on pixel fill information and color
information and discloses nothing related to the claimed
compressed image data (brief, pages 12 & 13).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that the step of discarding pixels in the preamble of the claim,
which is taught by removing pixels during the pre-process of Hsu,
is not linked to the step of “synthesizing” recited in the body
of the claim which is taught by Hyatt (answer, page 4).
Furthermore, the Examiner refers to the Hyatt’s selection of
“pixels along the vertical direction perpendicular to the edge
(Hyatt, col. 206, lines 26-29) as the claimed maintaining pixels
in a direction perpendicular to the edge (answer, page 4).
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). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
basis supported by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to
be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Such
evidence is required 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 not only identify the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007