Appeal No. 1998-2916
Application No. 08/606,975
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 the obviousness rejection of
representative independent claim 1, after reviewing the
Examiner’s analysis
(Answer, pages 4-7), it is our view that such analysis
carefully points out the teachings of the applied prior art
references, reasonably indicates the perceived differences
between this prior art and the claimed invention, and provides
reasons as to how and
why the prior art teachings would have been modified and/or
combined to arrive at the claimed invention. In our opinion,
the Examiner's analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we
find that the Examiner has at least satisfied the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. The burden is,
therefore, upon Appellant to come forward with evidence or
arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness. Only those arguments actually made by
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007