Appeal No. 1997-1349
Application 08/520,629
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, 519 U.S. 822 (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).
It is further established that “Under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, a reference must be considered not only for what it
expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.” In
re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir.
1994), citing In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ 67,
70 (CCPA 1979).
Turning to the rejection of claims 24, 25, 31, 37, 38, 43,
and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Appellants argue on pages 5 and 6
of the brief that Kunii does not teach a mounting assembly
which is an integral, single piece member connected between the
display and the housing in a substantially non-slidable manner
as defined in Appellants’ independent claim 24. Appellants on
page 6 of the brief point out that Kunii’s display 1 is moved
from the open position in Fig. 1A to its closed position where
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007