Ex Parte Bode et al - Page 9



          Appeal No. 2005-0166                                                        
          Application 09/789,872                                                      

          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 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 has indicated how he finds the claimed                         
          invention to be obvious over the teachings of Simmons [answer,              
          pages 13-14].  Appellants argue that Simmons does not generate a            
          distribution relating a manufacturing characteristic to a                   
          manufacturing metric as claimed.  Appellants also argue that                
          Simmons does not mention process target values at all, much less            
                                         -9-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007