Appeal No. 1997-3390 Application No. 08/354,384 The Examiner relies on the following references: Santangelo et al. (Santangelo) 5,342,793 Aug. 30, 1994 Merz et al. (Merz) 5,032,469 Jul. 16, 1991 Claims 8 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Santangelo and Merz. Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for the details thereof. OPINION After careful review of the evidence before us, we do not agree with the Examiner that claims 8 through 20 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we reverse. 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 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007