Appeal No. 95-4929
Application 08/093,790
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 4 through 10 are properly
rejected 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
1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996)
citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007