Appeal No. 95-4897
Application 08/242,806
(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, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (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).
In regard to the rejection of claims 6 and 7 as being
unpatentable over Murata and the rejection of claims 8 through
10
as being unpatentable over Murata and Kavehrad, Appellants
argue
on pages 5 through 7 of the brief that Murata fails to teach a
temporary inactivation of the control channel. Appellants
argue that this feature is claimed in each of the independent
claims. Appellants state on the bottom of page 5 and on the
top of page 6 the following:
This feature, which will from time to time result in
temporary unavailability of the central channel, is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007