Appeal No. 2003-0781
Application 09/373,499
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 [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-7, 21-25 and
34-38 based on the teachings of Otala and Morcos. With respect
to independent claim 1, the examiner essentially finds that Otala
teaches the claimed invention except that Otala does not teach
the format independent interface (FII). The examiner cites
Morcos as teaching a standard component object model (COM) which,
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007