Appeal No. 1999-2248
Application No. 08/960,255
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).
Appellants submit that claims 3-6 and 8-9 should be12
allowable at least by reason of their respective dependencies
from claims 1 and 7.
The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to13
a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to use the various types of welding recited
in the claims to connect two elements, as the types of welding
are well known in the art and are very simple and quick14
methods of securing two metal bodies together.
12Brief, page 10.
13Answer, page 6.
14Final action, page 3.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007