Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912
component of the pixel to smooth the transition between color components
of adjacent pixel,” as recited in claim 5. Therefore, the Examiner erred in
concluding that Farnung anticipates claims 5 through 9 even after
recognizing that Farnung does not teach the cited step.
After considering the entire record before us, we conclude that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not
have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set forth in
claims 5 through 9. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 5 through 9.
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 10 through 16 as
being unpatentable over Farnung, taken alone, or in Various
Combinations with Kishida, Hieda or Ishikawa Proper?
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984). The Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing that some
objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013