Appeal No. 95-2399
Application 08/061,669
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. 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).
The Examiner states on page 4 of the answer that
Cammons fails to teach applying an adhesive to a face of the
optical element and a face of one of the connector plugs as
recited by Appellants' claims. On page 5 of the answer, the
Examiner states that Palmer or Bowen teaches this limitation. The
Examiner states that "[i]t would have been obvious to provide the
device of Cammons et al. with the index of material of Palmer or
Bowen et al. in order to provide a direct join to an end face of
an optical connector and affixing an end face of an optical
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007