Appeal No. 1999-2277
Application 08/803,578
burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shift to the Appellant. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24
USPQ2d at 1444. See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“After a prima facie case of
obviousness has been established, the burden of going forward
shifts to the applicant.”). If the examiner fails to establish
a prima facie case, the rejection is improper and accordingly
merits reversal. Fine, 837 F.2d at 1074, 5 USPQ2d at 1598.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. See
Oetiker, 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.”). Accordingly, we now
consider the claims on appeal.
Appellant argues that Appellant’s invention solves a prior
art problem by the use of metallic bonding joints for joining
the slider and flexure by ultrasonic means without the use of an
adhesive. Brief at page 4. In contrast, Appellant contends,
Kudo requires an adhesive to join a slider to a flexible wiring
substrate. Brief at page 4. Therefore, Appellant concludes
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007