Appeal No. 2003-0357
Application 09/123,307
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 each of independent claims 1, 7, 16 and
25-27, the examiner essentially finds that Engstrom teaches the
claimed invention except that “Engstrom et al do not teach
expressly that the processor executing the startup instructions,
and upon execution of the startup instructions: determining
whether the mode of the video output device is the clean mode or
the verbose mode, displaying a first image defined by the
contents of the first video buffer, or a second image defined by
the contents of the second video buffer, respectively, and
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007