Appeal No. 1998-0818
Application No. 08/319,143
would have been led to the claimed invention by the express
teachings or suggestions found in the prior art or by the
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’l Inc., 73 F3d 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)).
Appellants’ arguments on pages 4 and 5 of the Brief
addressed above were also applied to the rejection of
independent claims 11, 12 and 14 based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Further, Appellants argue on page 5 of the Brief that the
Examiner used improper hindsight by taking the Official Notice
of using various known filters in combination with Chen.
Appellants assert on page 6 of the Brief that Chen provides no
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007