Appeal No. 1997-0300
Application 08/138,790
invention by the express 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-
Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087,
37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S.
822 (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)).
Appellants argue on page 8 of the appeal brief
(brief) that Shimp and Ardini combined do not teach the
claimed inven- tion. Specifically, Appellants argue on pages
5 and 6 of the brief that Shimp teaches away from the
invention as Shimp does not teach a write buffer between the
core and the memory. On
page 6 of the brief, Appellants also assert that though Ardini
teaches a write buffer, the write buffer is used in
conjunction with “unaligned writes.” Appellants assert that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007