Appeal No. 96-2657
Application 08/212,379
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 page 5 of the brief that neither the
combination of Watanabe 061 and Watanabe 388 nor Watanabe and
Mathieson teaches or suggests the claimed limitation that the
core will self-reopen and stay open to the minor axis
dimension
while the core is within a constraining means required by the
rejected claims. Appellants further emphasize these arguments
in the reply brief.
We note that Appellants’ claim 8 recites in part the
following:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007