Ex parte MOONEY et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 95-0057                                                          
          Application 07/775,114                                                      


          responded to these separate arguments of appellants, we will not            
          require strict compliance with 37 CFR  1.192 in order for                  
          appellants to have the claims considered separately for                     
          patentability.  Therefore, to the extent that appellants have               
          properly argued the reasons for independent patentability of                
          specific claims, we will consider such claims individually for              
          patentability.  To the extent that appellants have made no                  
          separate arguments with respect to some                                     
          of the claims, such claims will stand or fall with the claims               
          from which they depend.  Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325,              
          231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,           
          991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).                                        
          All the claims before us have been rejected under 35                        
          U.S.C.  103.  As a general proposition 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 re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed.           

                                          5                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007