Appeal No. 97-0320
Application No. 08/096,261
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth
in the Examiner’s Answer.
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. Accordingly, we affirm.
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
Appellant 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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007