Appeal No. 2000-1699
Application No. 08/706,123
essential part of complying with the burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re 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 appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellants could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
The examiner applies Tejima in the same manner as
discussed above. The examiner notes that wired network
calculators are known from the admitted prior art. The examiner
finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to create a
calculator network as set forth in independent claim 26 [answer,
pages 7-8]. Appellants make the same arguments discussed above
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007