Ex Parte Hayes et al - Page 4




               Appeal No. 2007-0421                                                                                                 
               Application No. 10/151,635                                                                                           

               a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the relevant prior art teachings does not have to                   
               be found explicitly in the prior art, as the teaching, 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 (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,                       
               1040, 228 USPQ 685, 687 (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, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 146-147 (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)].                                       
                       Turning first, to independent claim 20, the examiner finds that Yang describes the                           
               claimed subject matter but for causing the data that functions to identify the appliance to be                       
               uploaded from the remote controller having internet connectivity via a wide area communication                       

                                                                 4                                                                  




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007