Appeal No. 96-3704
Application 08/216,474
'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 & Assoc., 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 12 through 16 of the brief
that the present claims are not rendered obvious by any of the
teachings of the Hashimoto, Morikawa, Slezak, Toda and Oe
references, whether taken separately or in combination with
any of the other references of record. Appellant argues that
the Examiner has failed to show that the prior art suggests,
expresses or implies a combination of a monocoque load beam in
which an integrated circuit chip is mounted in the enclosed
shell portion of the monocoque region of the load beam as
required in
Appellant's claims 1 through 6 and 8 through 14. On page 4 of
the Examiner's answer, the Examiner states that Hashimoto does
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007