Appeal No. 1996-3960
Application No. 08/380,444
capacitance in the coupling between the low frequency
waveguide and the antenna.
We next consider the rejection of claims 1 through 4 and
7 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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 the
implication 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-Ordance 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)).
Appellant argues on page 7 of the Brief that the same
arguments applied to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also
apply to the 35 U.S.C. § 103. Further, on page 8 of the
Brief, Appellant argues that the rejection involves hindsight
reasoning.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007