Appeal No. 1999-1792
Application No. 08/879,477
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 this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007