Appeal No. 1998-2705
Application No. 08/867-773
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Hou et al. (Hou) 5,353,336 Oct. 4,
1994
McMahan et al. (McMahan) 5,402,477 Mar.
28, 1995
Claims 1 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over McMahan in view of Hou.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 9
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007