Appeal No. 2003-0815
Application 09/160,744
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 [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 22-26, 28-31,
33, 35-37 and 40-42 based on the teachings of Wallace and Rosa.
These claims stand or fall together as a single group [brief,
page 5], and we will consider the rejection with respect to
independent claim 22 as representative of all the claims subject
to this rejection.
The examiner’s rejection essentially finds that Wallace
teaches the invention of claim 22 except for the display of
functional relationships specific to electrical and fluid
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007