Appeal No. 1999-0890
Application 07/575,096
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, 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 page 7 of the Supplemental Appeal Brief (hereinafter
"brief"), Appellants argue that Dunkley fails to teach
Appellant's claim limitations. In particular, Appellants argue
that Dunkley teaches signature verification rather than
reproduction of a signature on a receipt and does not show or
suggest the method steps called for in the claims.
Appellants further argue that neither Dunkley nor Iggulden
discloses steps (e), (f) and (g) of claim 17, which Appellants
assert are "the heart of the claim". Appellants state (brief,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007