Appeal No. 97-1932
Application 08/028,047
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 Oess,
has pointed out the perceived differences between Oess and the
claimed invention, and has reasonably indicated how and why
Oess would have been modified and/or combined with Kishino 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 appellant to
come forward with evidence or arguments which persuasively
rebut the examiner's prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant has 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.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007