Appeal No. 1999-0007
Application 08/688,218
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief, reply brief and answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we will
not sustain the rejection of claims 3 through 6, 9 through 13, 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 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 recognizable 'heart'
of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l,
(...continued)1
this issue is not before us.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007