Appeal No. 2003-1188
Application No. 09/987,374
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, 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)].
We consider first the rejection of claim 1 based on the teachings of Aoki and
Baldwin. The examiner essentially finds that Aoki teaches the invention of claim 1
except for the claimed plurality of equalizing connectors. The examiner cites Baldwin as
teaching the claimed plurality of equalizing connectors. The examiner finds that it would
have been obvious to the artisan to modify the armature of Aoki to have the equalizing
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007