Appeal No. 96-3106
Application 08/052,015
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 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. 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).
1. Rejection of claims 1, 2 and 6 through 9 over Sutrina and
Granberg
With respect to claim 1, the only independent claim in
this grouping, the Examiner takes the position that Sutrina
shows all the features except that the first electrodes are
not
interconnected by the support member. The Examiner uses
Granberg for this interconnection. Thus, the Examiner
concludes that it
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007