Appeal No. 1996-4065
Application No. 08/234,115
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) 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).
With regard to the rejection of claims 5 through 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al.,
Enomoto et al and what was known in the prior art, Appellant
argues:
One reason for this is that the references fail to
teach or even suggest Appellant’s most basic claimed
arrangement: that of providing some keys as single
function keys and other keys as plural function keys
which are pre-assigned to result in plural data
instructions being generated and transmitted by the
remote controller. (Brief-page 5.)
The two preset data instructions are defined at
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007