Appeal No. 97-1564
Application 08/017,794
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).
Appellants argue on pages 7 through 11 of the brief that
IBM, Dewa and Abbiate, together or individually, fail to teach or
suggest a video subsystem having a monitor, adapter and cable
designed such that the monitor generates a fixed monitor
identification code on the static monitor identification lines
and after a triggering event, a handshaking process, between both
the adapter and monitor, the monitor identification pins are
reused to provide an electrical pathway for a dynamic
bidirectional serial link between the adapter and the monitor as
recited in Appellants’ claims. On pages 15 through 24 of the
brief, Appellants argue that IBM, Dewa and Abbiate, either alone
or in combination, do not disclose or suggest a monitor having
means to generate fixed monitor identification information on
monitor identification lines before a triggering event and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007