Appeal No. 2004-1443
Application No. 09/559,695
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicants 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 § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)).
The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 3-6 of the
answer. With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner notes
that Lincke teaches a user interface for a hand-held device in
which a plurality of categories are displayed including an all
category label, but the examiner acknowledges that Lincke fails
to teach a recently accessed category. The examiner cites
Hawkins as teaching a recently accessed category in the form of a
call history list. The examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to the artisan to combine Hawkins’ recently accessed list
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007