Appeal No. 97-2020
Application 07/957,107
prior art found in Appellants' specification on pages 1
through 7, De Jule and Williams.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants
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 2
through 7 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 determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007