Appeal No. 2003-1204
Application No. 09/592,535
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, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 146-147 (CCPA 1976).
With regard to claims 1, 2, 13-20 and 30-36, it is the examiner’s position that
Kawamoto discloses the claimed subject matter but for the claimed limitation of “the first
axis not intersecting with the second axis.” There is both a vertical and a horizontal
rotation axis in Kawamoto, as seen in Figures 10 and 11, showing the display swiveling
in a vertical and then a horizontal directional, respectively. The examiner has never
contended that these axes of rotation in Kawamoto do not intersect.
Instead, the examiner turns to Wu for a teaching of a hinge assembly having a
first axis of rotation (identifying elements 222 and 242 in Figure 3, and column 1, lines
60-64) which does not intersect with a second axis of rotation (identified as elements 12
and 131 in Figure 3, and column 1, lines 60-64).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007