Appeal No. 1998-2981
Application No. 08/763,390
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., Inc. 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., Inc. v. Garlock
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claims 1 and 5, which depend therefrom, recite use of two
regions of stress control material. The first region is "in
contact with a cut end of the cable shield and [extends] along
the cable insulation" and the second region is "disposed in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007