Appeal No. 1997-2245 Page 7
Application No. 08/402,872
Cir. 1984). These showings by the 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. 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).
Appellants and the examiner are in agreement that Mishin,
Weitschies, and Macri are not directed to the use of a compass
for detecting the displacement of the ingested magnetic
material. Appellants assert (brief, page 6) that Leibing
is directed to a detector for locating a magnetized pin
concealed within a building wall or floor, in a fixed
position. Appellants argues (id.) that because Leibing is not
directed to sensing directional movement, there is no
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007