Appeal No. 1998-0183
Application No. 08/413,040
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is sustained with
respect to claims 12 to 14, but not with respect to claims 1
to
3 and 6 to 10. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In our analysis, we are guided by the general proposition
that 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, 1051, 189
USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976). We are further guided by the precedence of
our reviewing court that the limitations from the disclosure
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007