Appeal No. 96-1476
Application 08/186,515
claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan 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., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
(Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W. L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With regard to the rejection of claim 1, Appellants
argue that the "pressure-introducing channel is a slit formed
along an axis of said spark plug on a threaded portion of said
metal shell." (brief at page 9). Looking at claim 1, we find
the corresponding language "said pressure-introducing channel
being a slit formed along an axis of said spark plug on a
threaded portion of said metal shell", lines 9-11. The
Examiner responds that Steinke shows a pressure introducing
channel 35 in Figure 2, which is a slit in the metal shell,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007