Appeal No. 1998-2585
Application No. 08/643,935
Claims 1, 2, 4 to 6, 8 to 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 to 23,
25 to 28, 34, 35, 37, 38 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over various combinations of Picault, Johnson, Fuchigami
and Ooyama.
Rather than repeat in toto the positions and the
arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we make reference to
the brief and the answer for their respective positions.
OPINION
We have considered the rejection advanced by the
Examiner. We have, likewise, reviewed Appellants’ arguments
against the rejection as set forth in the brief.
We affirm-in-part.
In rejecting a claim 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 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 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.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007