Appeal No. 1996-3708
Application 07/474,742
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is 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 of suggestions found in the prior
art, or by the implication 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-
Ordance 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)).
As stated above, the Examiner has not shown that Engels
discloses a communications bus or a central core which
contains an interface with the communications bus, a switching
matrix and an encoder. On pages 7 and 8 of the answer the
Examiner admits that Engels does not explicitly teach the
claimed communications bus, but asserts that “it would have
been self-evident/logical that Engels’ system provided for
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007