Appeal No. 1997-3415
Application No. 08/037,849
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by 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-
Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'1, 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).
The Examiner does not dispute that neither Nozue nor
Nugent teaches an aromatic group attached to each silicon
atom.
However, the Examiner relies on Nozue's prior art statement
found in column 1, lines 19-24, for this teaching.
Appellant argues on pages 3 and 4 of the brief that Nozue
clearly teaches away from the use of Brown's polymer by
stating that Brown provides a polymer that's inferior in heat
resistant adhesion to a substrate. Appellant points to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007