Appeal No. 1997-3959
Application No. 08/183,693
Furthermore, in an appeal involving a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103, we are guided by the general proposition that
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
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189
USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
ANALYSIS
At the outset, we note the grouping elected by Appellants
at pages 13 and 14 of the brief. We will discuss the
rejections under the two grounds of rejection separately.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Claims 52, 63, 83-86, 89 and 97 stand rejected under
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007