Appeal No. 1997-2162
Application 08/280,430
end of the car. Appellants add on page 11 of the brief that
Gary’s end panel “moves as one” contrary to the separate gate
and ramp at the same end of the car as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments on page 4
of the answer by stating that Gary’s ramp functions as a gate
which means that the ramp and the gate are actuated together
in order to be opened at the same time. The Examiner on page
5 on the answer adds that it is Nordskog’s separate ramp and
gate on the same side of the car not the stair ramp 136 which
is relied upon in the rejection.
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
invention.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007