Appeal No. 2004-1274
Application 09/951,616
Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368-69, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears
the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can satisfy
this burden by showing that some objective teaching in the prior
art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in
the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this
initial burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with
evidence or argument shift to Appellant. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at
1445, 24 USPQ at 1444. Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at
788. An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.”
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he board
must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007