Appeal No. 1997-0534
Application 08/171,904
the Declaration does not show this conversion [Answer, page
8]. Nevertheless, the Examiner has not shown, and we have not
found, where and how Wijeyesekera anticipates the claimed
weight ratio of 0.1-0.3% by weight. Therefore, we do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1 and other
claims, 2, 4, 5 and 7 to 9 over Wijeyesekera as they all
contain the same or corresponding limitationsas as claim 1.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner has lastly rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7
to 9 as being obvious over Wijeyesekera.
Before discussing the specific rejections, we outline the
criteria for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007