Ex parte GEMPE et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1996-4073                                                        
          Application No. 08/345,917                                                  
                    Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants                 
          and the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer                 
          for the respective details thereof.                                         







                                       OPINION                                        
                    After a careful review of the evidence before us, we              
          will not sustain the rejection of claims 31 through 33 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                      


                                          5                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007