Ex parte KAPOOR - Page 4




          Appeal No. 96-4080                                                          
          Application 08/396,541                                                      


          respective details thereof.                                                 
                                       OPINION                                        
               We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3 through               
          27 and 29 through 52 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 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309               
          (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).                        

                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007