Appeal No. 1997-3969
Application No. 08/175,052
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 appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over the teachings of Akkapeddi and Haines. The
examiner finds that Akkapeddi teaches the claimed invention
except for the plate having a working image array in which a
plurality of subapertures are formed as contiguous polygonal
subapertures. The examiner cites Haines as teaching such a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007