Appeal No. 1999-1661
Application No. 08/801,862
to make out a prima facie case of obviousness. If that burden
is met, the burden of going forward then shifts to Appellants
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 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Arguments which Appellants could have made but elected not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered in this decision
(note 37 CFR § 1.192).
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner has
addressed how the various limitations are suggested by Kramer.
In particular, the Examiner has restated his original position
expressed in the final rejection with regard to the claimed
“distance sensor.” The Examiner now asserts that it would
have been obvious to the skilled artisan to consider the drain
wires 30 and 31, arranged in cavity A+B, which actuate a
signal when walls 26 and 28 come into contact with each other,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007