Appeal No. 95-3998 Application 07/914,904 respective details thereof. OPINION We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996) citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., 4(...continued) answer as simply the answer. The Examiner responded to the reply brief with a supplemental Examiner's answer mailed August 1, 1996. 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007