Appeal No. 1997-0621
Application 08/368,679
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Lish and under obvious-type double
patenting over claims 1 to 20 of S.N. 08/368,680.
Reference is made to Appellants' brief and the Examiner's
answer for their respective positions.
OPINION
We have considered the record before us, and we will
reverse the rejection of claims 1 through 20.
With respect to claims 1 through 20, the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. 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
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 Importer Int’l, Inc.,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007