Appeal No. 1996-4124
Application No. 08/307,088
invention by the expressed teachings or 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-Ordinance 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 pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is
the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitations appearing in the specification
are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1,
5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007