Appeal No. 1998-2884
Application No. 08/495,960
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22-26
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Iranmanesh in view of Okada. As a general proposition 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 Appellant 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). With respect to
representative independent claim 22, after reviewing the
Examiner’s analysis (Answer, pages 4 and 5), it is our view
that the Examiner has pointed out the teachings of the applied
Iranmanesh and Okada references, has reasonably indicated the
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007