Appeal No. 2002-1045
Application 09/131,890
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 appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We will not sustain this rejection of the examiner because
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Rim is deficient for reasons discussed above. The
additional teachings of Suzuki do not overcome the deficiencies
of Rim. Therefore, the examiner’s rejection which relies on Rim
does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness for reasons
discussed above.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007