Appeal No. 1996-3365
Application 08/258,357
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Appellant and will not sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 3 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 reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan 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., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W. L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
The Examiner has cited Hillis as teaching the
arrangement of busses and bus multiplexers recited in claim 1.
Callison is then combined with Hillis to provide the parity
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007