Ex Parte MARTINS et al - Page 3




              Appeal No. 20004-0226                                                                                     
              Application No. 09/216,184                                                                                


              or to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention.  Such reason must                  
              stem from some teachings, suggestions or implications in the prior art as a whole or                      
              knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in the art.  Uniroyal, Inc. v.                 
              Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert.                           
              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, 1040, 228 USPQ 685, 687 (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 at least the independent claims, the examiner contends that                         
              Azadegan discloses the instant claimed subject matter but for the inclusion of only non-                  
              zero values in an interest matrix and that none of the plurality of entries takes on a zero               



                                                           3                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007