Ex Parte Zeng et al - Page 4


                   Appeal No. 2006-3040                                                                  Page 4                     
                   Application No. 10/261,196                                                                                       

                   motivation, or suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than                             
                   expressly stated in the references.  The test for an implicit showing is what the combined                       
                   teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to                       
                   be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.  In re                          
                   Kahn, 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.  See 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)].                                    
                   We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 3-18, 23-28, 35, and 40-45 based on Bick                            
                   and Schneider.  Since appellants have only presented arguments with respect to                                   
                   independent claim 1, we will treat claim 1 as the representative claim for all claims                            
                   subject to this rejection.  The examiner has set forth how the invention of these claims is                      
                   deemed to be rendered obvious by the collective teachings of Bick and Schneider                                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007