Appeal No. 2000-0196
Application 08/796,478
Rather than repeat the arguments of the appellant and the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for3
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
examiner in the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs.
We affirm-in-part.
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
A Reply brief was filed as Paper No. 30 on March 26, 1999. The3
examiner objected to this reply brief. See Paper No. 31. Appellant filed a
substitute reply brief on May 5, 1999 as Paper No. 32, which was entered into
the record. See Paper No. 33. Therefore, our reference here to the reply
brief is a reference to the substituted reply brief.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007