Ex parte SHRINKLE et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1997-1174                                                        
          Application 08/353,681                                                      


               Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the              
          Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the                 
          respective details thereof.                                                 







                                       OPINION                                        
               After a careful review of the evidence before us, we will              
          not sustain the rejection of claims 12 through 21 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 reasonable teachings or suggestions found in               
          the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the artisan                  
          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              


                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007