Appeal No. 95-3388
Application 08/242,993
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 26 through 28, 30, 31 and
35 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we will
sustain the rejection of these claims but we will reverse the
rejection of the remaining claims on appeal for the reasons
set forth infra.
Turning to Appellants' claims 1 through 25, 29, 32
through 34 and 36 through 42, 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 con-
tained 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.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007