Appeal No.97-0582
Application 08/179,926
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 20
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)
to the supplement to the brief with a second supplemental answer
thereby entering the supplement to the brief into the record.
4The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's
answer, mailed November 9, 1995. We will refer to the Examiner's
answer as simply the answer. The Examiner responded to the
reply brief with a supplemental Examiner's answer, mailed August
16, 1996. We will refer to the Supplemental Examiner's answer as
simply the supplemental answer. The Examiner responded to the
supplement to the brief with a second supplemental Examiner's
answer, mailed June 25 1997, by stating that no further arguments
are necessary. The Examiner offered no other response.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007