Appeal No. 2002-1339
Application No. 09/148,239
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 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 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, 1051-52, 189 USPQ 143,
146-47 (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 (see 37 CFR §
1.192(a)).
Specifically with regard to instant claim 1, the examiner
explains, at pages 4-5 of the answer, how Imamura is alleged to
disclose the claimed disc drive, slider, microactuator having a
stator portion having fingers, and a rotor portion upon which is
mounted a transducer.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007