Appeal No. 1999-0264
Application No. 08/573,582
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, 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 8-18 of the Brief, Appellants argue that
Nakajima, being directed to a magnetic tape storage device,
solves a different problem than Appellants' invention, and
that Nakajima teaches "identification means" that cannot be
changed during use. Appellants further argue that Saldanha
does not teach a separate memory for storing identification
information, that neither Nakajima nor Saldanha teaches a
microprocessor in the disk storage device, and that Saldanha
teaches a more complicated approach because of his desire to
be interchangeable with both a WORM medium and a magneto-
optical medium. Appellants dispute the Examiner's expressed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007