Appeal No. 1998-0882
Application 08/598,416
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan 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) (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)).
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner cites the
individual elements of claim 1 and relates them to specific
portions of Matsumoto (answer-page 3). The Examiner concludes
by stating:
It is noted that Matsumoto fails to
explicitly teach the details of [the] process in
which only a single processor is involved. However,
Matsumoto’s processor 212 (figure [2]) which
control[s] the process is [the] only [] processor
performing the operation (equivalent to Applicant’s
figure 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to a
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007