Appeal No. 1998-2699
Application 08/387,504
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the Appellants' arguments set forth in the brief.
We reverse.
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. Cir.
1992); 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 are further
guided by the precedent of our reviewing court that the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007