Appeal No. 2000-0452
Application No. 08/622,389
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs.
We reverse.
As a general proposition, 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 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).
Appellants argue (brief at page 6) that “[a]lthough Kamisaka
[or Tomisawa] teaches a logic unit . . ., there would be no
motivation to combine these two references in the manner asserted
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007