Appeal No. 2000-0194
Application No. 08/774,126
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
been unpatentable over either Slaugh or Haydon.
Rather than repeat the arguments of the appellant and the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 1
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the examiner
and disputing arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
appellant’s argument set forth in the briefs.
We reverse.
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
1A reply brief was filed on June 14, 1999 as paper number
21. The entry of this paper was noted by the examiner on June
30, 1999, see paper number 22.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007