Appeal No. 2006-0909 Page 10
Application No. 09/282,320
claim 18 its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations merely require attaching a
mirror to a camera.2
b. Obviousness Determination
"Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious." Massingill, at *3. The question
of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e]
prior art teaches explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383, 59
USPQ2d 1693, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ2d 1614,
1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed.
Cir. 1995)). "'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,
2Even if the representative claim did recite the limitation that its mirror is
"movably arranged at an angle to" its camera, the rest of the appellants' specification
does not mention, let alone explain, the meaning of the movable arrangement. Giving it
its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitation merely requires arranging a
movable mirror at some angle to a camera.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007