Appeal No. 95-3362
Application 08/009,200
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.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Appellant argues on pages 19 through 22 of the brief that
Aasen, fails to teach or suggest a separate heat source powered
by the power source (i.e. the generator/heat engine or fuel cell)
or the controlling means as recited in Appellant’s claims 1 and
5. In particular, Appellant argues that Aasen fails to teach a
heat generating means powered by the generator for supplying heat
to the heat load and controlling means including a storing means
for storing information indicating a relation between a load
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007