Appeal No. 95-1816
Application 07/859,347
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 17 through 24,
26 and 27 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 July 25, 1994. We will refer to
this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants filed a reply appeal brief
on October 7, 1994. We will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply
brief. The Examiner responded to the reply brief with a letter, mailed
October 18, 1994, stating 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 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007