Appeal No. 2005-1078
Application 09/681,303
Liprie ‘781, Suthanthiran9 and Liprie ‘300 to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time the
claimed invention was made. Thus, we again evaluate all of the evidence of obviousness and
nonobviousness based on the record as a whole, giving due consideration to the weight of
appellant’s arguments in the brief. See generally, In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
We find no argument in appellant’s brief with respect to the combined teachings of Liprie
‘781 and ‘300 (brief, pages 9-10).10 We agree with the examiner’s finding (answer, pages 5 and
10) that Liprie ‘300 would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art radioactive sources
encapsulated in a rounded capsule for integration within a source wire (abstract, FIG. 1 and col.
5). Thus, Liprie ‘300 combined with Liprie ‘781 provide substantial evidence in support of the
examiner’s position.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of Liprie ‘781,
Suthanthiran, and Liprie ‘300 with appellant’s countervailing evidence of and argument for
nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 7, 8,
16 and 26 would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
On the same record, we agree with the supported conclusion advanced by the examiner
that as a matter of law, prima facie, the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claim 1
would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Liprie ‘781, Narciso and Ishibe11 to
one of ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made. Thus, we again
evaluate all of the evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness based on the record as a whole,
giving due consideration to the weight of appellant’s arguments in the brief. See generally,
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444; Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
9 A discussion of Suthanthiran is not necessary to our decision. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300,
1302-04, 190 USPQ 425, 426-28 (CCPA 1976).
10 This ground of rejection has been of record since the non-final Office action mailed August
13, 2002.
11 A discussion of Ishibe is not necessary to our decision. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300,
1302-04, 190 USPQ 425, 426-28 (CCPA 1976).
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007