Appeal No.95-5026 Application 07/923,668 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 22 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 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 2Appellants filed an appeal brief on March 3, 1995. We will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants filed a reply appeal brief on July 27, 1995. We will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The Examiner responded to the reply brief with a letter, mailed August 22, 1995, stating that the reply brief has been entered and considered but no further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary. 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007