Appeal 2007-0278
Application 10/042,047
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claims 27 and 35.
Claims 6, 12, and 18
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 6, 12,
and 18 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Shamoon in view of
Nicolas.
Appellants argue even if Shamoon’s multimedia stream (¶ 0349) is
considered to be an image, Shamoon and Nicolas nevertheless do not teach
or suggest a multimedia image from a “single web page,” as claimed (Br.
10-11).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148
USPQ 459, 467 (1966). “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review
of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Furthermore, “‘there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013