Appeal No. 1996-3362
Application No. 08/258,601
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for 2
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 3 through 6
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 Sernacker, 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.2d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996), citing W. L. Gore &
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on October 4, 1995.
Appellants filed a reply brief on March 1, 1996. The examiner
mailed a communication on April 23, 1996 stating that the
reply brief has been entered and considered, but no further
response by the examiner is deemed necessary.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007