Appeal No. 1996-3052
Application 08/064,639
teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995,
217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determin-
ing 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, 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 page 7 of the brief, Appellants argue that the
Examiner has failed to show that the prior art figures 16A
and 16B teach or suggest a one piece electrode plate as dis-
closed and claimed. Appellants argue on page 8 of the brief
that the one piece electrode plate is structurally and func-
tionally different from the two piece welded plate of the
prior art. Appellants further argue on page 8 of the brief
that the prior art fails to teach or suggest "steps having
inclined and continuous walls being between said two portions"
as recited in claim 1.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007