Appeal No. 95-3641
Application 07/992,069
WP 5.1 in a manner to carry out the claimed invention [final
rejection, pages 2-3].
Appellant responds that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Specifically,
appellant argues that 1) The examiner has not shown any
suggestion in the prior art to automatically store data in two
formats in a file; 2) The examiner has not shown any compelling
motivation to write a macro to automatically store data in two
formats; 3) The examiner is using hindsight reconstruction; and
4) The examiner has mischaracterized appellant’s invention as a
design choice [brief, pages 5-7]. Appellant also argues that
even the obviousness of writing a macro in WP 5.1 would not have
suggested the invention as recited in claims 1-8.
The examiner does not respond specifically to these
points argued by appellant, but rather, argues that the known use
of a universal data format as a translation bridge between
different data formats would have made it an obvious design
choice to employ any of a combination of multiple data formats
[answer, pages 3-6].
When the evidence as a whole is considered and the
relative persuasiveness of the examiner’s and appellant’s
arguments are factored in, we agree with appellant that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007