Appeal No. 1998-2116
Application 08/665,760
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, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996)
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).
On pages 4-8 of the Brief, Appellants argue that
Laug does not teach the generation of a pulse signal in
response to a rising edge of a clock input. Because Laug
lacks a teaching of the first pulse, Appellants argue, Laug
fails to teach turning on a differential amplifier in response
to the beginning of the pulse, and turning off the
differential amplifier in response to the end of the pulse.
In the answer, the Examiner admits that Laug does
not teach generating a pulse using logic circuitry in response
to a rising edge of a bus clock signal, but asserts that such
pulse generation is well known in the art, citing Grundmann as
evidence. The Examiner further asserts that Grundmann teaches
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007