Appeal No. 96-4088
Application 08/317,411
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 & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984).
On page 6 of the brief, Appellant argues that the
Examiner has not shown how the references, whether taken alone
or in combination, describe or suggest "a processing array
comprising . . . a bidirectional interconnection network
disposed to directly connect all of adjacent neighboring
processing elements . . . for carrying data messages between
any of the adjacent neighboring processing elements . . . and
enabling that processing element to generate parity for the
first data message being sent by that processing element while
simultaneously checking parity of the second message being
received by that processing element" as recited, for example,
in Appellant's independent claim 1. Similarly, Appellant
argues on page 13 that neither Sze nor Chin describes or
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007