Appeal No. 1999-1992
Application No. 08/848,842
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
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 in greater detail than argued by
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007