Appeal No. 95-4544
Application 07/975,905
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
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. Inc. 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, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311-13 [sic] (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Appellant argues in the reply brief and supplemental reply
brief that Jakobs fails to teach or suggest the use of personal
computers. Appellant further emphasizes in the reply brief and
the supplemental reply brief that Jakobs fails to teach the
specific structure as recited in claim 1. In particular,
Appellant states on page 11 of the reply brief that Jakobs fails
to teach the following limitations:
1) the system includes at least one host PC
having a multi-tasking processing means which is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007