Appeal No. 1997-2895
Application 08/280,341
Examiner must set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. 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
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 Importer Int’l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996) 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).
With respect to each of the above obviousness rejections,
the Examiner has relied on his position and discussion of
Stefik above with respect to independent claim 1. The
Examiner has presented no evidence, or a line of reasoning, to
cure the deficiencies of Stefik to meet the claimed
limitations discussed above. The additional references are
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007