Appeal No. 2004-0731 Page 5
Application No. 09/957,059
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. 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).
The examiner's position (answer, pages 4-7) is that
Norimatsu does not disclose the cellular phone to be
nonresettable and rendered permanently inoperative. To make up
for this deficiency of Norimatsu, the examiner turns to Crossley
for a teaching of permanently rendering inoperative a cellular
phone after a predetermined period of time. The examiner
additionally asserts (answer, page 6) that Norimatsu does not
disclose a remaining time indicator "for indicating a period of
calling time provided and deductible from the cellular phone
during cellular communications and to start and stop the
deduction of calling time." To overcome this additional
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007