Appeal No. 2001-1454
Application No. 08/412,118
929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an 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 and are deemed to be waived by appellants [see 37 CFR §
1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 18, 24, 26, 30, 35 and 37 based on the
teachings of Plummer and Fry ’848. The examiner finds that Plummer teaches the
claimed invention except for the insulating coating covering the wires and the explicit
disclosure of connectors. The examiner cites Fry ’848 as teaching the use of an
insulating coating for a wire harness, and the examiner asserts that it would have been
obvious to the artisan to apply this insulating coating to the wire harness of Plummer.
The examiner also notes that Fry ’848 teaches the use of wires having different
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007