Appeal No. 1998-0765
Application No. 08/451,853
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.
Cit. 1992); In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cit.
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). We are further guided by the
precedent of our
reviewing court that the limitations from the disclosure are
not to be imported into the claims. In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d
543, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957); In re Queener, 796 F.2d 461,
230 USPQ 438 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We also note that the
arguments not made separately for any individual claim or
claims are considered waived. See 37 CFR § 1.192(a) and (c).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007