Appeal No. 1999-1657
Application No. 08/877,781
We considered the rejections advanced by the examiner and
the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs.
We reverse.
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
persua-siveness 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
precedence of our
reviewing court that the limitations from the disclosure are
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007