Appeal No. 1997-3253
Application 08/357,196
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the 1
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 20
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 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),
1Appellants filed an appeal brief on November 19, 1996.
Appellants filed a reply brief on January 14, 1997. The
Examiner in response to the reply brief mailed a communication
on February 24, 1997 stating that the reply brief has been
entered and considered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007