Appeal No. 2004-1533
Application 09/100,223
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, 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 appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 41.].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 9-12,
15, 16 and 19-39 based on Hotaling taken alone. With respect to
independent claims 1 and 5, which are grouped together by
appellant [brief, pages 3-4], the examiner essentially finds that
Hotaling teaches the claimed invention except that Hotaling does
not teach selecting from three results viewing options as
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007