Appeal No. 1997-3225
Application No. 08/351,218
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 F3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir.
1995)(citing W. L. Gore & Asscs., Inc.v. Garlock Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), Cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
Appellants assert on page 6, line 2, of the brief that
the present invention adopts a database of images approach to
provide images for animation. Appellants argue that Lee does
not teach the limitation in claim 1 of “forming a database of
images including at least said first and second images.”
In analyzing the scope of the claim, office personnel
must rely on the Appellants' disclosure to properly determine
the meaning of terms used in the claims. Markman v. Westview
Instruments, 52 F.3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed.
Cir.)
(in banc), aff'd, U.S., 116 S. Ct. 1384 (1996).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007