Appeal No. 1998-3135 Page 6
Application No. 08/789,519
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 applicants 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).
We consider first the rejection of claim 5 based on the
teachings of Kadota. The claim language at issue recites that
“the charge-to-voltage conversion factor being selectively
changed in response to gate voltages selectively applied to
said first and second precharge gate electrodes.” The
examiner’s position (answer, page 4) is that “[i]t would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the gate
voltages are selectively applied to the first and second
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007