Appeal No. 1997-1374
Application No. 08/415,101
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we will
not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 7 and 9 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
recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance 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)).
Appellants admit that Carlson teaches a cardinal array of
SLM’s of the Liquid Crystal Device (LCD) type, and that
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007