Appeal No. 1999-0013
Application No. 08/649,972
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jones
in view of APA and Lubkin.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed Mar. 30, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 10, filed Mar. 5, 1998) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants generally argue that the combination of the three teachings does not teach or
suggest the retrieval of information related to the development of a complex system
including firmware, hardware and software. (See brief at page 4.) We agree with
appellants.
From our review of the teachings of Jones, Jones is concerned with industrial process
control and further teaches the use of an engineer’s console which can be used to develop
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007