Appeal No. 1997-0317
Application No. 08/160,275
will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 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 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, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37
USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (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)).
With regard to the rejection of claim 1, Appellants
argue:
As to the combination of the two references
[AAPA and IBM], it is improper to combine the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007