Appeal No. 2004-0031
Application 09/485,656
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 2-5, 10, 19-22,
24 and 26-28 based on the teachings of Hafner in view of
Hollander and Mildner. These claims stand or fall together as a
single group [brief, page 2]. We will consider independent claim
4 as the representative claim for this group of claims. The
examiner finds that Hafner teaches the coaxial cable of claim 4
except that Hafner does not teach the inner conductor being
provided by forming a metal strip into a tubular configuration
with longitudinal side edges of the strip abutted together and
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007