Appeal No. 2000-2000
Application No. 09/105,124
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).
At the outset, we note that appellants elect to have all the
claims stand or fall together, see brief at page 3. We take
claim 1 as representative of the group. In response to the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Obata in view of
Gluntz (final rejection at pages 2 and 3), appellants argue
(brief at page 6) that:
The Examiner’s assumptions of what would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art are
therefore in direct contravention to the teachings of
the prior art of record [Obata and Gluntz]. Only
Applicant has recognized that there is a reason to
measure the volume of blow-by gases removed from the
engine crankcase: they are a direct indication of the
health of the engine, specifically the health of the
piston rings which seal the combustion chambers.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007