Appeal No. 95-3517
Application 08/203,729
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 relies on Hamacher for a teaching of a
secondary memory controller to extend the effective memory space
of RAM. As we have found above, we fail to find that Hamacher
teaches the structure as recited in Appellant's claims.
Furthermore, we fail to find any suggestion in Hamacher or
Christian to provide such structure. Therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1, 5, 9, 13
and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or the rejection of claims 2 through
4, 6, 8, 10 through 12, 14 through 16, 18 through 207 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007