Appeal No. 1996-3229
Application 08/271,477
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, reference is made to the brief, supplemental
reply brief (Paper No. 24) and answer for the respective4
details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Appellants and will not sustain the rejection
of claims 25, 30, 32 and 35 through 38 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 reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan 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., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
Appellants’ Reply Brief, Paper No. 17, was not entered.4
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007