Appeal No. 1997-3390
Application No. 08/354,384
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Santangelo et al. (Santangelo) 5,342,793 Aug. 30,
1994
Merz et al. (Merz) 5,032,469 Jul. 16,
1991
Claims 8 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Santangelo and Merz.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for
the details thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 8 through 20 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we reverse.
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007