Appeal No. 96-0281
Application 08/248,625
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 15
through 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 obvi-
ousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the inven-
tion." 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 & Assoc., Inc.
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
On pages 6 and 7 of the brief, Appellant argues that
Sakata fails to teach or suggest that compression occurs only
when the amount of stored data exceeds a predetermined thresh-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007