Appeal No. 1998-2260
Application No. 08/535,685
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner. We have, likewise, reviewed Appellant’s arguments
against the rejection as set forth in the briefs.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is sustained with
respect to claims 1 to 5 and 14 to 17, but not with respect to
claims 18 to 28. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In our analysis, we are guided by the general proposition
that 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 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007