Ex parte ROLLER - Page 13




          Appeal No. 95-4605                                                          
          Application 08/076,285                                                      

          made to AutoCAD's ARRAY command "because it is specifically                 
          provided to give a designer the ability to enter a variable                 
          number of repetitions as an operand--this number is not initially           
          'predetermined'" (Examiner's Answer, page 10).  The question is             
          whether it would have been obvious to store the ARRAY command as            
          part of a generic design program without specifying the values              
          for all the parameters, and executing the command when creating             
          an actual variant.  We conclude that the answer is yes in view of           
          the generic design program teachings of HP-DESIGN.                          
               Prof. Dr. Roller's declaration further states (page 2):                
               Modification according to the teaching of HP DESIGN would              
               result in a system which is able to process variable                   
               dimensions, as well as fixed replications (AutoCAD                     
               teaching), but would still not comprise                                
               a) a procedure for entering variable replications during               
                    the design step,                                                  
               b) means for replacing the variable number of replications             
                    by actual values during the step of creating an actual            
                    variant,                                                          
               c) means for altering the topology during creation of an               
                    actual variant.                                                   
          Again, declarant does not address the obviousness reasoning and             
          the statements are unpersuasive for reasons stated supra.                   
               Appellant argues that the examiner engaged in impermissible            
          hindsight and that there is no suggestion for making the proposed           
          modifications (Brief, pages 17-18).  We disagree.  HP-DESIGN                

                                       - 13 -                                         





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007