Appeal No. 2006-1435 Page 10
Application No. 10/352,299
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 28 and 32 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Trulson. Since we find
that the examiner has established a prima facie case of the
obviousness of these claims, and since appellant has offered no
rebuttal arguments specifically directed to these claims, we
sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to parent claims 27 and 31.
We now consider the rejection of claims 6, 14 and 21-34
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Liang. The examiner
has indicated how the invention of these claims is deemed to be
rendered obvious by the teachings of Liang [answer, page 8]. In
addition to arguments considered above, appellant argues that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007