Appeal 2007-1770
Application 10/632,289
optimized, it instead contains a dip in the center of the curve
(Yamazaki, p. 2, ll. 28-32).
4. To solve the problem and obtain an optimized light intensity
distribution, Yamazaki incorporates a third light source between
the two light sources of the two-light source exposure method.
The third light source is located at the central position,
equidistant from the two other light sources. The two outer light
sources are symmetrically located about the inner source
position, and are in the locations required by Appellants’ claims.
(Yamazaki, p. 4, ll. 21-30).
C. Principles of Law
“[T]o reject claims in an application under section 103, an examiner
must show an unrebutted prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 985-86, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis
omitted). One of the ways in which a claim’s subject matter can be proved
obvious is by establishing that there existed at the time of invention a known
problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
claims. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385,
1397 (2007). “On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
rejection by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by
rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.” Kahn, 441 F.3d at 985-86, 78 USPQ2d at 1335 (emphasis
omitted).
D. Analysis
Applying the preceding legal principles to the Factual Findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has established an
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013