Appeal No. 94-3053
Application 07/832,661
Claim 60 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
view of Hester. 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), 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).
On page 2 of the reply brief and page 4 of the
brief, Appellants only argue that Hester fails to teach the
limitations recited here below:
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007