Appeal No. 1997-3742
Application 08/405,561
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for 2 3
the details thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 10, 24,
and 25 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, we reverse.
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
2 Appellants filed an appeal brief on November 21, 1996.
Appellants also filed a reply brief on February 13, 1997 which
was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner with further
comments in a supplemental answer.
3The Examiner mailed an answer on January 27, 1997 and a
supplemental answer on April 29, 1997.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007