Appeal No. 1999-1456
Application No. 08/864,750
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2 through 12
and 14 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'1, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085,
1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519
U.S. 822 (1996), 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).
On page 6 of the brief, Appellants argue that the
admitted prior art nor Clark teach or suggest a redundant
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007