Appeal No. 97-0315
Application 08/336,181
(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 Importer 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, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to claim 1, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s rejection [answer, pages 3 to 4], the Examiner’s
response to Appellant’s arguments [answer, pages 4 to 5] and
Appellant’s corresponding arguments [brief, pages 3 to 6]. We
agree with the Examiner that APA shows the voltage multiplier
circuit in figures 1A - 1C. However, the claimed limitation:
“means for moving said voltage multiplier circuit in an intact
condition in response to an electrical instruction signal
between a first position ... and a second position ... .”
[claim 1, lines 10 to 16] is not shown by APA. The Examiner
contends that it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention, to automate the
switching operation of the power supply polarity, since “it
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007