Appeal No. 2002-1606
Application No. 08/906,648
burden of going forward then shifts to 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 In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); 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).
With respect to independent claim 1, the representative
claim for Appellant’s first suggested grouping (including claims
1-11), after reviewing the Examiner’s analysis (Answer, pages 3
and 4), it is our view that such analysis points out the
teachings of the Van Vliet and Howard references, reasonably
indicates the perceived differences between this prior art and
the claimed invention, and provides reasons as to how and why the
prior art teachings would have been modified and/or combined to
arrive at the claimed invention. In our opinion, the Examiner's
analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we find that the
Examiner has at least satisfied the burden of presenting a prima
facie case of obviousness. The burden is, therefore, upon
Appellant to come forward with evidence and/or arguments which
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007