Appeal No. 1998-0476
Application 08/397,157
"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) (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 reasons that MOTOROLA teaches the
claimed invention except for “suppressing those monitoring
signals which are active if the microcomputer is operating to
execute a program from the RAM.” (Answer-page 8.) The
Examiner continues by taking Official Notice
(a) that suppressing (concealing or
subduing) those irregular (faulty or erratic)
signals, which have emerged (directly or indirectly)
due to radiation (or noise), so as to prevent
undesirable consequences is notoriously old and well
known in the art, and
(b) that it is a common sense that a
monitoring signal would go through a path if it is
not suppressed. (Answer-page 9.)
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007