Appeal No. 1999-2070
Application 08/611,899
one of ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject
matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial burden is met does the
burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift to
the Appellants. In re Attacher, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ at
1444. See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at
788 (“After a prima facie case of obviousness has been
established, the burden of going forward shifts to the
applicant.”).
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments.
See In re Attacher, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444 (“In
reviewing the examiner’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.”). With
these principles in mind, we now turn to consider the
arguments related to claim 6.
Claim 6 recites as follows:
6. A limiter as in claim 1, wherein said insulating
layer is formed of silicon and said field tips are formed of
tantalum silicide.
We have already established that Gray does not teach a
voltage limiter. Gray teaches a distributed amplifier. We
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007