Appeal No. 95-2219
Application 08/041,922
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the 2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. 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. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d
1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on August 19, 1994. We
will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants
filed a reply appeal brief on January 3, 1995. We will refer to
this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The Examiner stated
in the Examiner’s letter dated January 30, 1995 that the reply
brief has been entered and considered but no further response by
the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007