Appeal No. 2001-1773
Application No. 08/732,864 Page 5
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. 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).
We begin with claim 1. The examiner's position (answer,
pages 3 and 4) is that “Bullock et al. does not disclose that the
information storage device is a circuit having a resistance value
corresponding to the information stored therein, or that the
storage device comprises a resistive network to provide a
selected resistance between a pair of terminals, the pair of
terminals configured for engagement with corresponding printer
terminals.” To make up for this deficiency in Bullock, the
examiner (answer, page 4) turns to Watrobski for a teaching of
“an inkjet printhead having an information storage device
comprising a circuit (60a, 64, 62, 60b) having a resistance value
corresponding to the information stored therein, and that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007