Appeal No. 1998-3391
Application 08/659,143
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for 1
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6 through
11, 13 through 16, and 20 through 26 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 the 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-Ordance Mfg Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
1Appellant filed an appeal brief on February 12, 1998.
Appellant filed a reply brief on May 26, 1998. The Examiner
mailed an office communication on June 9, 1998 stating that
the reply brief has been entered and considered, but no
further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007