Appeal No. 2006-1215
Application No. 09/781,324
USPQ2d 2002, 2008 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 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
[see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-15 and 25-34
based on Takizawa and Pole. With respect to independent claims
1-3, the examiner essentially finds that Takizawa teaches the
claimed invention except that Takizawa does not teach the
lowering of the processing ability while keeping the electronic
apparatus operative as recited in the claims. The examiner cites
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007