Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200
Because Thomas fails to disclose all limitations of representative
claim 14, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims
14, 15, 29, 30, 38, and 39.
Obviousness Rejections
We now consider the rejection of claims 4, 19, and 366 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thomas in view of Reyzin. 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). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to
overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness
is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative
persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding representative claim 4, the Examiner's rejection essentially
finds that Thomas teaches every claimed feature except extracting further
comprising decomposing the affine transform into a translation and a linear
transform matrix. The Examiner cites Reyzin as teaching such a feature and
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to incorporate such a teaching into Thomas’
6 Appellant indicates that claim 4 is representative of this claim grouping
(Br. 13).
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013