Appeal No. 2002-1309 Page 4
Application No. 09/286,760
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 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)].
The examiner has indicated how he finds the claimed
invention to be obvious over the teachings of Singhal. The
examiner asserts that although Singhal does not use the term
“requantization error,” the examiner finds that the variance
processor 8 of Singhal is equivalent. The examiner asserts that
it would have been obvious to the artisan to recognize that
Singhal discloses an element which performs the claimed functions
[answer, pages 3-4].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007