Appeal No. 96-4092
Application 08/278,363
and Schulz. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sudo in view of Meise.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and
the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 7 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007