Appeal No. 1997-3164
Application 08/397,024
examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden 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 Id.; 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 appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to claim 23, the examiner points to the
substrate of Figure 8 of Schnetzer which is provided with 1) a
continuous slot 133, 2) first electrically conductive
metallization 131b, 3) second electrically conductive
metallization 131a, and 4) a pair of axially aligned frequency
adjusting means 137 [final rejection, Paper No. 16]. The
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007