Appeal No. 96-2189
Application 07/969,731
whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the
invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. 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, 15451, 1553,
220 USPQ 303, 311-13 [sic] (Fed.Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851, 105 S.Ct. 172, 83 L.Ed.2d 107 (1984).
Appellants argue on pages 5 through 8 of the brief that
Matsko and Yalla, together or individually, fail to teach or
suggest an overcurrent trip unit which includes an indicator
means associated on a user interface panel with a visual
protection curve representation and having a first state in
response to a trip signal generated by the trip means and
having a second state associated with the visual protection
curve representation in response to adjustable predetermined
function through input means. We note that Appellant’s claim
1 recites:
[a]n overcurrent trip unit . . .
a user interface panel presenting a visual
protection curve representation of said adjustable
predetermined function;
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007