Appeal No. 95-5061 Application 07/825,979 The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case. It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Appellants argue on pages 6-10 of the brief and pages 2-6 of the reply brief that neither Luke nor Raeder teaches or suggests steps (a), (b) or (c) as recited in Appellants' claim 1. In particular, Appellants' argue that the references fail to teach that the executing threads be represented by a model of the system or that a method step of animating the selected executing thread by moving a symbol for a transaction along arcs connecting nodes until blocked by the occurrence of an event. In the answer, the Examiner argues that Luke teaches 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007