Appeal No. 96-2025
Application 07/860,254
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).
In regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 5
under 35 U.S.C.§ 103 as being unpatentable over Inada in view
of Kanatani and Flegal and the rejection of claims 2 and 6
through 9 under 35 U.S.C.§ 103 as being unpatentable over
Inada in view of Kanatani, Appellants argue on pages 12
through 25 of the brief that Inada, Kanatani and Flegal,
together or individually, fail to teach or suggest a
symmetrical drive method which utilizes binary code signals
and inverts the binary code signals in order to provide a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007