Appeal No. 1999-1454 Page 7
Application No. 08/596,343
USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the
examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden 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. See id.; 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 consider first the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings of the admitted
prior art taken together with Hosen and Lin. We begin with
claim 1. The examiner’s position (answer, pages 3-4) is that
the prior art (specification, page 1) discloses a conventional
integrated circuit device wherein the component parts such as
the power supply, CPU chip, controllers and connector are all
mounted on a single, one-sided or two-sided multi-layer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007