Appeal No. 2006-0748 Page 4
Application No. 09/740,528
B. OBVIOUSNESS DETERMINATION
"Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious." Ex Parte Massingill,
No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *3 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004). "In rejecting claims
under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 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, DeNicola describes two systems, viz., "a live interactive distance learning
system, and . . . an on-line testing, evaluation and reporting system." (Col. 1, ll. 6-8.)
Of the two systems, only the live interactive distance learning system employs "a
student classrooms display station 50," (Col. 8, l. 24), which "provide[s] [an]
instructor/actor with the ability . . . to observe the students themselves. . . ." (Id. at
ll. 25-29.) Regarding the on-line testing, evaluation and reporting system, we agree with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007