Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
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. 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 appellant have been
considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR §
1.192(a)].
With respect to each of the claims on appeal, the
examiner has pointed out the teachings of Haney, Appel and
Frazer, has pointed out the perceived differences between this
prior art and the claimed invention, and has reasonably
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007