Appeal No. 1997-0583
Application 08/368,680
the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
art, or by implications
contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re 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 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).
We first take claim 1. The Examiner states:
It is noted that Lish does not show: (1) the master
& slave sample and hold circuits and (2) the actual
coefficient signals. First, the “master & slave
sample and hold circuits” are merely specific
delays. Second, the actual coefficient signals are
implicitly discussed from the Figures and the
corresponding recitation. It would have been
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007