Appeal No. 96-2607
Application 08/001,865
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).
Appellants argue on pages 7 and 8 of the brief that
Johnson and Lawrie, together or individually, fail to teach or
suggest coupling of each of a plurality of intermediate
storage buffers to all of a plurality of execution units via
an independent bus wherein each independent bus is associated
with a single one of said plurality of intermediate storage
buffers. The Examiner argues on page 7 of the answer that it
is irrelevant whether the reference teaches this limitation
because this limitation is not recited in Appellants’ claims.
Appellants responded in the reply brief that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007