Appeal No. 1999-1542
Application No. 08/806,864
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).
We are further guided by the precedent of our reviewing court
that the limitations from the disclosure are not to be imported
into the claims. In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 113 USPQ 530
(CCPA 1957);
In re Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 230 USPQ 438 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We
also note that the arguments not made separately for any
individual claim or claims are considered waived. See 37 CFR §
1.192(a) and (c). In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,
391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the
function of this
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007