Appeal No. 1999-1543
Application No. 08/456,762
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 limitations from the disclosure are not
to be imported into the claims. In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543,
113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957); In re Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 230 USPQ
438 (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). In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
(“It is not the function of that court to examine the claims
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007