Ex Parte KATO et al - Page 8



          Appeal No. 2000-1941                                                        
          Application 08/567,128                                                      

          denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. 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 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 appellants have been considered in this                    
          decision.  Arguments which appellants could have made but chose             
          not to make in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR               
          § 1.192(a)].                                                                
          We will consider the rejections of independent claims 2,                    
          9 and 10 over Nelson taken alone (claims 2 and 9), Ertel taken              
          alone (claim 9) and Concelman taken alone (claim 10) together               
          because each of the rejections raises similar arguments by the              
          examiner and by appellants.  Specifically, the examiner does not            
                                          8                                           




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007