Appeal No. 1999-2010
Application No. 08/684,635
We have 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).
ANALYSIS
We begin our analysis with independent claim 1.
On page 4 of the examiner’s answer, the examiner explains
the manner in which claim 1 is rejected over Smith and
Southland. Among other things, the examiner contends, id,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007