Appeal No. 2006-2191
Application No. 10/108,147
OPINION
The initial burden of establishing reasons for
unpatentability rests on the Examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner
must produce a factual basis supported by teaching in a prior art
reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable
demonstration, consistent with the holding in Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). Our reviewing court
requires this evidence 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); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268,
271-72 (CCPA 1966). However, “the Board must not only assure
that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The focus of Appellants’ argument is that the combination of
the references fails to disclose the limitation of “formatting
Internet retrieved content for navigation” (brief, page 3).
Appellants argue that although Fujita matches menu items uniquely
to keys on a remote, it uses preset menu items that are locally
generated and cannot be acquired from any remote content source
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007