Appeal No. 1998-0931 Page 6
Application No. 08/139,619
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Ashland Oil, Inc.
v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227
USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
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 applicants 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).
We consider first the rejection of claims 15 and 18-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings of Hedges and
Tillery. We begin with independent claim 15.
The examiner takes the position (answer, page 5) that
"Hedges does not show a plurality of the terminal agents"
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007