Appeal No. 1997-4071
Application No. 08/047,511
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)(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)).
Appellants argue on page 8 of the appeal brief, that
Stinson, although having some sort of memory, fails to
disclose or suggest a memory which is divided into plural
sections, each section being associated with a specific data
processing function. Appellants further argue that Stinson
fails to disclose or suggest storing sentence entries in each
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007