Appeal No. 1998-2490
Application 08/434,263
functions, McCormick does not even deal with a computer mouse
and the problem associated with a loose computer mouse cord
which Appellants are trying to solve. We find that the
Examiner is misplaced in ignoring the claimed limitations.
Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of
claim 22 over McCormick.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 23 to 25 and 27 to 28 are rejected as being
obvious over McCormick and Yiin.
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 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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007