Appeal No. 96-1083
Application 08/150,099
suggestions found in the art, or 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 Importer
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).
We take the representative claim 1. Appellants
argue [brief, pages 4 through 6] that the applied prior art,
Hartai and Verstegen, taken singly or in combination, does not
show the limitation: “the length of the discharge path is at
least 250 times and at most 1000 times the internal diameter
of the lamp vessel.” [Claim 1, lines 8 to 10]. The Examiner
points to Hartai and asserts that “... the length of the
discharge path is arbitrary which may fall within the claimed
range of at least 250 times and at most 1000 times the
internal diameter of the lamp vessel (Col. 1, Lines 12-14).”
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007