Appeal No. 95-3288
Application 08/148,020
reasonably pertinent and therefore we find that the references
applied are analogous.
Combinability
Appellants also argue on pages 11-13 of the brief that
there is no basis to combine Charles with the other cited
references and if they were combined they do not teach an
optically opaque alumina shield. 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.,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007