Appeal No. 1997-1572
Application 07/792,534
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 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). We are further guided by the
precedence of our reviewing court that the limitations from
the disclosure are not to be imported into the claims. In re
Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957); In re
Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 230 USPQ 438 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We also
note that the arguments not made separately for any individual
claim or claims are considered waived. See 37 CFR § 1.192 (a)
and (c). In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21
USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of
this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued
by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the
prior art.”); In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 936, 152 USPQ 247,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007