Appeal No. 97-0203
Application No. 08/162,893
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claims 1 and 3-11. We reach the opposite conclusion with
respect to claims 12-18. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
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 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).
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007