Appeal No. 2006-1654
Application No. 09/929,488
441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) citing In re
Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
See also In re Thrift, 298 F. 3d 1357, 1363, 63 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).
At the outset, we note that we reference infra the corrected appeal
brief that was attached to the reply brief received on Jun. 21, 2005. In the
reply brief appellant admits that the term of art “tilt angle” was used
inadvertently in various locations within the original appeal brief (filed on
Feb. 7, 2005), when “twist angle” is the correct parameter of interest [reply
brief, page 2]. We note that the first page of the corrected appeal brief
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007