Appeal No. 1997-2700
Application 08/307,249
claim.
Since all of the claimed limitation are present in the
disclosure of Hunt, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of appealed claims 1-3, 8-13, 18-20, and 24 is
sustained.
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 4-6, 14-16, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hunt in view of Hou. 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 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
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007