Appeal No. 1998-3383
Application 08/352,662
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings for
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),
citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Appellant argues that neither Stevens nor Bristol render
the Appellant's invention unpatentable because the combination
of those references do not show and suggest each feature
recited in the present claims. Appellant argues that the
limitation "searching for undefined process variable field in
the process control block for the first process, after the
first process has been invoked" recited in Appellant's claims
1 and 12 is not met by these references.
Appellant argues on page 8 of the brief that the
definition of the term "undefined" must be given special
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007