Appeal No. 96-4169
Application 08/378,066
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 & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claims 1 through 17, 19, 24 and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Raasch in
view of Galbraith. On page 5 of the brief, Appellants argue
that neither Raasch nor Galbraith teaches or suggests
modifying the Raasch system to allow direct control of the
peripheral devices by the keyboard. Appellants further argue
that the Examiner failed to clearly state exactly how
Galbraith's teaching would be used to modify the Raasch
system.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact
that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by
the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007