Ex parte MCPHETERS - Page 6




          Appeal No. 1998-0929                                                        
          Application 08/469,770                                                      


          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 and the relative persuasiveness of the              
          arguments.  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).  Only                   
          those arguments actually made by appellant have been                        
          considered in this decision.  Arguments which appellant could               
          have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been                  
          considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].                                         




          We consider first the rejection designated as 1.                            
          above.  The claims subject to this rejection stand or fall                  
          together as a single group except that claims 36, 46, 58 and                


                                          6                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007