Appeal No. 1997-2030
Application 08/400,287
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-0rdnance Mfg. v. SGS Importer
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 pages 10 and 11 of the brief that the suggested combination of
the references of Yokouchi and Grossel does not provide for an optical system disposed
between the X-ray image intensifier tube and the video camera, so as to output
substantially the same size output image of the X-ray image intensifier tube on the video
camera in both the fluroscopic mode and the radiographic imaging mode, as recited in the
independent claims on appeal. Appellants further emphasize this argument on pages 2
and 3 of the reply brief stating that the Applicants again submit that Yokouchi does not
disclose a structure of a video camera having the same beam scanning area in both a
fluroscopic mode and a radiographic image mode.
On pages 6 and 7 of the answer, the Examiner responds to Appellants' arguments
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007