Appeal No. 1997-1111 Page 17
Application No. 08/105,899
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an essential
part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). 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. See id.;
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).
The examiner’s position (answer, page 7) is that “Ueda
does not specifically disclose the limitations disclosed by
appellant.” To overcome this deficiency in Ueda, the examiner
relies upon Hägglund. The examiner’s position is that Hägglund
discloses, within a PID tuning system, the use of controlled
self oscillation for tuning a controller. The examiner takes
the position (answer, page 13) that the modification would
have been obvious because both Ueda and Hägglund disclose use
of the Ziegler-Nichols method of tuning. Appellant asserts
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007