Appeal No. 95-2623
Application 08/084,623
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the collective evidence relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention as set forth in claims 22-26. Accordingly, we
affirm.
As a general proposition in an appeal involving a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an examiner is under a burden
to make out a prima facie case of obviousness. If that burden
is met, the burden of going forward 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).
With respect to independent claim 22, it is the
position of the examiner that the collective teachings of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007