Appeal No. 96-4169
Application 08/378,066
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer 2
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 19, 24 and 25 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
2We note that Appellants' appendix found in the brief
incorrectly sets forth claim 14. As amended by Amendment B,
the words "peripheral device controlling" are deleted.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007