Appeal No. 95-3535
Application No. 08/095,033
response to an intent to transfer the designated data and prior
to the transfer. While there may, in fact, exist some prior art
reason why doing this would have been obvious, within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. ' 103, the APA identified by the examiner suggests
no such reason and the examiner’s rationale for making the
required modification to the APA, i.e., so that the old systems
would not have to be recalled and modified, is not persuasive
because it was appellants, themselves, who taught this reason and
the examiner has pointed to nothing in the APA which indicated
that artisans recognized that it would have been helpful to
perform the conversion at the later version level rather than at
the older version level in order not to have to recall and modify
each of the older version level computers.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 32
through 42 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Jerry Smith ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
James T. Carmichael )
Administrative Patent Judge )
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007