Appeal 2007-0666
Application 09/738,992
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'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, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, a part of Simonoff cited by the Examiner, (Answer 5), explains
that the reference " provide[s] . . . a machine readable code stored in
memory for converting a general purpose computer system into a dedicated
White Board system facilitating collaboration between a plurality of users."
(Col. 7, ll. 3-6.) "[E]xecution of the machine readable code generates . . .
a freehand drawing tool for generating freehand drawing objects which are
displayable at user-selected locations on the White Board screen. . . ." (Abs.
ll. 4-5, 14-16.) Execution thereof also generates "a transmission device for
transmitting all generated ones of . . . the freehand drawing objects to each
of the users, an accumulating device for accumulating . . . the freehand
drawing objects. . . ." (Id. ll. 16-22.)
Although the reference transmits freehand drawing objects to each of
the plurality of users, the objects do not appear on a paper document.
Instead, we agree with the Appellants that these appear on "an electronic
white board." (Br. 12.)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013