Ex Parte Gebele et al - Page 4


                   Appeal No. 2006-3152                                                                 Page 4                     
                   Application No. 10/168,492                                                                                      

                   expressly stated in the references.  The test for an implicit showing is what the combined                      
                   teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to                      
                   be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.  In re                         
                   Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re                                 
                   Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).  See also  In                           
                   re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1363, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2008 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  These                                   
                   showings by the examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden of                                  
                   presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.  See 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 and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].                                   
                   We consider first the rejection of claims 18-20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29-32, 34-41, and 43                           
                   based on Umemoto taken alone.  The examiner has explained how the invention of these                            
                   claims is deemed to be rendered obvious by the teachings of Umemoto [answer, pages 4-                           
                   6].  With respect to claims 18 and 29, which are argued together, appellants argue that                         
                   Umemoto fails to teach the part of the claimed invention that recites that the erasure                          
                   radiation is output onto the storage layer at least during the entire period between the                        






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007