Ex parte BENDER et al. - Page 4




         Appeal No. 1998-1853                                                      
         Application No. 08/397,292                                                


              In our analysis, we are guided by the general proposition            
         that in an appeal involving a rejection under 35 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            
                                         4                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007