Appeal No. 1997-3970
Application No. 08/391,379
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)].
As noted above, the examiner’s rejections are based
upon an interpretation of Ozawa or Sawada which is incorrect.
Neither Ozawa or Sawada discloses or suggests at least one
electrical impedance in the cassette wherein the impedance
value defines the parameter of the cassette. The additional
teachings of Sedra and Yoshii, which are used in the
obviousness rejections, do not overcome the basic deficiencies
in the primary references to Ozawa and Sawada.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007