Appeal No. 1998-1677
Application No. 08/273,251
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'l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996) (citing W. L. Gore & Assoc.,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
On pages 3 through 6 of the reply brief, Appellant argues
that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to replace the
electronic copying arrangement as disclosed by Grindley with a
contact type copying arrangement as taught by Kanematsu, since
each performs entirely different functions to acquire
substantially different results. Appellant points out that
Grindley uses a common capstan to synchronize the movement of
a master and a plurality of copy tapes to effectuate an analog
re-recording. Appellant also points out that Kanematsu uses
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007