Appeal No. 1998-0824
Application No. 08/621,767
available to one of ordinary skill in the art suggests the
claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5
USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial
burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence
or argument shift to the Appellants. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at
1445, 24 USPQ at 1444. See also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472,
233 USPQ at 788 ("After a prima facie case of obviousness has
been established, the burden of going forward shifts to the
applicant.").
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ at 1444. ("In
reviewing the examiner's decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and arguments."). With
these principles in mind, we commence review of the pertinent
evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
The Examiner argues that Appellants' Figure 6 shows all
the claimed elements other than the control circuitry
electrically coupled to said second current generator and to
said output power transistor, said control circuitry being
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007