Appeal No. 1997-0515
Application 08/350,504
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and
the Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for 2
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and
14 through 16 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 determin-
ing 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.,
2Appellant filed an appeal brief on June 3, 1996. Appel-
lant filed a reply brief on October 29, 1996. The Examiner
mailed a communication on August 12, 1998 stating that the
reply brief has been entered and considered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007