Ex Parte MAEDA - Page 4



          Appeal No. 2000-2184                                                         
          Application 08/629,626                                                       

          modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive            
          at the claimed invention.  Such reason must stem from some                   
          teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole              
          or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in             
          the art.  Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,               
          1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825            
          (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,              
          776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.                 
          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 appellant have been considered in this decision.            
                                          4                                            




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007