Appeal No. 1997-0594
Application No. 08/448,134
the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We will not sustain any of the rejections of claims 1, 11
through 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has not 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 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-Ordnance
Mfg.,
September 8, 1998 the Board of Appeals and Interferences
remanded the case to: have a terminal disclaimer considered,
amend the brief to identify the real party of interest and
have an appendix which properly refers to the claims. On
September 22, 1998 Appellants filed a revised appeal brief.
On April 9, 1999 the Examiner identified that the September
22, 1998 brief was defective as only 1 copy was submitted. On
May 3, 1999 Appellants refiled the September 22, 1998 brief in
triplicate.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007