Appeal No. 96-0609
Application No. 08/024,803
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’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).
Appellants argued on pages 5 through 7 that Moran failed
to teach or suggest "a set of memory shift registers . . . "
as recited in Appellants' claim 1, line 9. In particular,
Appellants pointed out that the Examiner merely draws a
conclusion of obviousness without presenting any evidence that
the invention is obvious.
The Examiner states on page 3 of the answer that "Moran
did not teach a plurality of memory shift registers
independent of each other for simultaneous shifting of blocks
of information independent of other shift registers." On the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007