Appeal No. 96-3254
Application 07/991,019
Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 10, 12 through 14, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Foley in view of Winget and Glassner.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of appellants and the
examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellants’ grouping of the claims at page 3 of
the brief, all claims stand or fall together.
As a general proposition, in an appeal involving a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an
examiner is under a burden to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. If that burden is met, the
burden of going forward then shifts to appellants 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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007