Appeal No. 1997-3029
Application 08/416,526
Reference is made to Appellants’ briefs and the 1
Examiner's answer for their respective positions.
OPINION
We have considered the record before us, and we will
reverse the rejection of claims 1 to 11 and 13 to 18.
With respect to claims 1 to 11 and 13 to 18, the Examiner
has failed to 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.,
1A reply brief was filed as paper no. 25 and its entry
approved without any response from the Examiner [paper no.
27].
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007