Appeal No. 1997-4415
Application 08/469,990
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 10-12, 18 and
19 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.,
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on June 30, 1997.
Appellants filed a reply brief on August 22, 1997. On
September 17, 1997, the Examiner mailed a communication
stating that the reply brief has been considered and entered
but no further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007