Appeal No. 1997-1766 Application No. 08/245,033 ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed 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'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). In Appellant's appeal brief, reply brief and second reply brief, Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to those skilled in the art to combine the image stabilization teachings of the secondary references with the five-unit nonstabilizing zoom lenses of Ogawa or Ishii. Appellant argues that the Examiner continues to ignore the complexity and unpredictability of zoom lens construction with image stabilization. Appellant argues that designing a multi- -5-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007