Appeal No. 1997-2899
Application No. 08/385,574
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior 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 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)).
Appellant on page 5 of the appeal brief argues that
Yamada does not teach Appellant’s simultaneous transmission of
duplicate information over different communication links as
defined in independent claim 24. Appellant further points out
that Yamada’s redundant databases and connections provide
access to a second database only after it has failed to access
its normal database rather than simultaneous transmission of
duplicate data. Appellant concludes that a mere possibility
of a modification made to the basic elements in Yamada’s
structure does not support a prima facie case of obviousness.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007