Appeal No. 1999-1517
Application No. 08/837,523
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 limitations from the disclosure are
not to be imported into the claims. In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d
543, 548, 113 USPQ 530, 534 (CCPA 1957); In re Queener, 796
F.2d 461, 464, 230 USPQ 438, 440 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We also
note that the arguments not made separately for any individual
claim or claims are considered waived. See 37 CFR § 1.192(a)
and (c). Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391,
21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285
(Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007