Appeal No. 1998-0912
Application 08/413,521
line 10, should be a “,”. In claim 1, last line, “the
condensate” has no antecedent. In claim 6, “top of the
package” should be “top of the container”, “so that on the
contamination” should be “so that on contamination”, and “by a
condensate,” should be “by the condensate,”. We also note the
amendment to claim 2, changing “assembly” to “circuit” has not
been physically entered.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 10 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 reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007