Appeal No. 2003-0330
Application No. 09/533,805
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, 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 by
appellants [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to independent claims 1, 13, 23 and 32, the
examiner essentially finds that Donovan teaches the claimed
invention except that Donovan does not specifically disclose
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007