Appeal No. 1996-2480
Application 08/163,825
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, 519
U.S. 822 (1996) citing W. L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
On pages 10 through 12 of the brief, Appellants
argue that neither Weingard nor Lu teaches or suggests a
plurality of perceptron nodes, each perceptron node
connected to a corresponding node from said plurality of nodes
for producing class designators, wherein said transforming
node transmits a signal to its corresponding perceptron node
for producing a class designator as recited in Appellants'
claim 1. Appellants argue that the perceptron node is a term
known in the art and is defined in the "Background of the
Invention" found in Appel- lants' specification. Appellants
argue that this definition must be given weight when the
Examiner considers the rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007