Appeal No. 96-3124
Application 08/265,585
whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the
invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. S.S. 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 pages 6 and 7 of the brief that
Whiteside fails to teach or suggest "during a regroup
operation, checking for a recordation of a prior received
power-fail mes-sage, and if the recordation exists sending a
cautious message to
the plurality of processor units indicating receipt of a
power-fail message" as recited in Appellants' claim 3. We
note that the only other independent claim, claim 6, recites
"during a regroup operation, checking for a recordation of a
prior received power-fail message, and if the recordation is
found sending the regroup message to the plurality of
processor units indicating receipt of a power-fail message."
Whiteside teaches in column 10, lines 21-46, that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007