Appeal No. 2000-0962
Application 08/885,801
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden 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 Id.; 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). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 5-8 of the
final rejection which has been incorporated into the examiner’s
answer. Appellant argues that although Hidary teaches obtaining
a uniform resource locator (URL) network address from a video
program signal, the URL is not located in a portion of the image
which is perceptible to the human eye, and is therefore, opposite
to the claimed invention. Appellant also argues that the
examiner has not provided a proper technical reason or motivation
to combine the teachings of Fitzpatrick and Hidary [brief, pages
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007