Appeal No. 2004-1450
Application No. 09/449,015
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, 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)).
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10-
12, 14 and 17-19 based on Wong and Popa. The examiner’s
rejection is set forth on pages 4-9 of the answer. With respect
to each of the independent claims, appellants argue, inter alia,
that Wong does not teach or suggest transmitting an
identification from an image sender computer (first computer) to
a recipient computer (second computer) of an image located on a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007