Appeal No. 2000-2255
Application No. 09/123,522
a prima facie case of obviousness. If that burden is met, the
burden of going forward then shifts to Appellant 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, 1051-52, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to independent claims 1, 6, and 11, and
dependent claim 7, after reviewing the Examiner’s analysis set
forth at page 4 of the Answer, it is our view that such analysis
carefully points out the teachings of the Newton and Zaitsu
references, reasonably indicates the perceived differences
between this prior art and the claimed invention, and provides
reasons as to how and why the prior art teachings would have been
modified and/or combined to arrive at the claimed invention. In
our opinion, the Examiner's analysis is sufficiently reasonable
that we find that the Examiner has at least satisfied the burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. The burden is,
therefore, upon Appellant to come forward with evidence and/or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007