Appeal No. 95-3237
Application 08/154,721
having 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. 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).
Appellant argues on pages 4 and 5 of the brief that
Hall fails to teach a saddle of the clamp to be offset at a
downward tilting angle from the perpendicular to the central
axis. Appellant further argues that Hall fails to teach that
the bolt of the clamp defines the angle of tilt for the saddle
relative to the longitudinal central axis.
We note that Appellant's claim 1 recites a "saddle
being offset at a downward tilting angle from the perpendicular
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007