Appeal No. 93-3623 Page 18
Application 07/629,690
specifically urge that finding with regard to the closest prior
art. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Weight of evidence
1. A conclusion of obviousness must be based on a
preponderance of evidence, with due consideration for the weight
of the evidence and the persuasiveness of the argument. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
2. Declaration evidence must be evaluated as part of the
totality of evidence. Baxter Int'l Inc. v. Cobe Labs., 88 F.3d
1054, 1058, 39 USPQ2d 1437, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Declarations
unsupported by objective evidence may be accorded little or no
weight. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 860, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir.
1985). A declaration and its support must be relevant to the
question at hand. Schendel v. Curtis, 83 F.3d 1399, 1403,
38 USPQ2d 1743, 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
3. The relationship between the declarant and the inventor
is relevant in determining the weight to be accorded the
affidavit. Refac Int'l, Ltd. v. Lotus Dev. Corp., 81 F.3d 1576,
1581-82, 38 USPQ2d 1665, 1669 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Indeed, an
inventor is presumed to support the patentability of the claimed
invention to the extent that the absence of favorable inventor
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007