Appeal No. 96-4197
Application No. 08/425,261
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).
Appellant argues on pages 10 through 17 of the brief that
Kamrat and Welker, together or individually, fail to teach or
suggest applying a force lateral to the end of the insertion
rod which precludes extending beyond the insertion rod as
recited in claims 19 through 21 or a pair of parallel
hydraulic cylinders, each hydraulic cylinder extending toward
the pipe adjacent to and aligned at the side of the stuffing
assembly and blocking valve as recited in claims 22 through
29.
The Examiner argues on page 4 of the answer that it would
have been obvious to those skilled in the art to replace the
Kamrat threaded bars with two of the hydraulic cylinders of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007