Ex Parte BETT et al - Page 8



          Appeal No. 2002-1732                                                        
          Application No. 09/338,238                                                  

          at the claimed invention.  Such reason much stem from some                  
          teachings, suggestions or implications in the prior art as a                
          whole or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary               
          skill in the art.  Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d           
          1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488              
          U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins &                        
          Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed.              
          Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys.,             
          Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933            
          (Fed. Cir. 1984).  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, 1040, 228 USPQ 685, 687 (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, 189 USPQ 143,               
          146-147 (CCPA 1976).  Only those arguments actually made by                 
          appellant have been considered in this decision.  Arguments which           
                                         -8-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007