Appeal No. 96-4189
Application 08/279,157
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, 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).
Appellant argues on pages 7 and 8 of the brief that
neither Jacob, Lewiner nor van den Boom, together or individ-
ually, teaches or suggests a portable unit and an interior
unit which allows for an interaction between the user
operation, the portable unit, and the interior unit, where the
user actuates the key in response to visual feedback from the
interior unit which cumulatively results in entry of a code to
change the status of the security system as recited in
Appellant's claim 8. Appellant argues on pages 17 and 18 of
the brief that neither Jacob, Lewiner nor van den Boom,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007