Appeal No. 97-1931
Application 08/364,826
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Appellants’ initial argument is that the examiner has
failed to make out a prima facie case of obviousness. Appellants
should not confuse the prima facie case with the ultimate
determination of the relative persuasiveness of the substantive
arguments in support of the rejection. In order to satisfy the
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, the
examiner need only identify the teachings of the references,
identify the differences between the prior art and the claimed
invention, and provide a reasonable analysis of the obviousness
of the differences which an artisan might find convincing in the
absence of rebuttal evidence or arguments.
With respect to the claims on appeal, the examiner has
pointed out the teachings of Dworkin, has pointed out the
knowledge attributable to the skilled artisan, has pointed out
the perceived differences between this prior art and the claimed
invention, and has reasonably indicated how and why Dworkin would
have been modified in view of the skill of the artisan to arrive
at the claimed invention. In our view, the examiner’s analysis
is sufficiently reasonable that we conclude that the examiner has
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007