that Georgiou discloses every element of Appellant's claims.
Therefore, we find that Georgiou fails to teach all of the
limitations of claims 1, 2, 6 and 21 through 24, and thereby the
claims are not anticipated by Georgiou.
Claims 1 through 6, 8, 9 and 18 through 24 are also rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiou and
Franaszek. 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 4 of the answer, the Examiner states that Georgiou
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007