Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
“Additionally, when determining obviousness, the claimed
invention should be considered as a whole; there is no legally
recognizable ‘heart’ of the invention. “Para-Ordinance 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)).
Appellant argues on page 7 of the appeal brief (brief)
that the Examiner erroneously analyzed the claims to only
include that the control is responsive to ambient temperature.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner overlooked the claimed
recitation of the control being responsive to ambient
temperature and load demand. On page 8 of the brief,
Appellant asserts that none of the references of record
“varies the rotational speed of the power generator to adjust
an output of the gas turbine in response to the load demand
signal and ambient temperature.” Appellant asserts on pages 8
and 9 of the brief that Carroll does not teach controlling
drive shaft speed in accordance with ambient temperature as
asserted in the rejection. Rather, Appellant asserts that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007