Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
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.
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).
The examiner has pointed out the teachings of each of the
applied references, has pointed out the perceived differences
between the applied prior art and the claimed invention, and has
reasonably indicated how and why the applied prior art would have
been modified and/or combined to arrive at the claimed invention.
The examiner has, therefore, at least satisfied the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. The burden is,
therefore, upon appellants to come forward with evidence or
arguments which persuasively rebut the examiner's prima facie
case of obviousness. Appellants have presented several arguments
in response to the examiner’s rejection. Therefore, we consider
obviousness based upon the totality of the evidence and the
relative persuasiveness of the arguments.
1. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and
7-15 as unpatentable over the teachings
of Finegold in view of Obradovic,
Konecny or the admitted prior art.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007