Appeal No. 1997-2865
Application 08/113,789
ing 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 & Assoc.,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
On pages 7 through 9 of the brief, Appellants argue
that neither White nor Fox teaches or suggests "selecting by
the console operator at least one of said plurality of CPCs
for performing one or more common operational control func-
tions" as per claim 1. Appellants further argue that neither
White nor Fox teaches or suggests
communicating by the control console to
each selected CPC a request to perform the
associated common operational control func-
tion by initiating execution by the se-
lected CPC of an associated operational
task, whereby a single operational control
interface at a single console provides
operational control over all CPCs at a
computer installation by selecting, commu-
nicating and executing diversely programmed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007