Appeal No. 1999-0013
Application No. 08/649,972
a required control program, monitor or control the industrial process. (See Jones at col.
14.) We view the engineer’s console as the closest teaching within Jones to the disclosed
and claimed invention. With this said, we disagree with the examiner’s picking and
choosing of random teachings within Jones to arguably meet the various limitations recited
in claim 1. (See answer at pages 4-5.) Jones does teach the use of hardware cards for
use in processing (see Jones at col. 15), but does not teach the use of a data map display
or card display means as recited in the language of claim 1. Nor do we find that Jones
teaches at least one external card link as the examiner maintains at page 4 of the answer.
The examiner maintains that the use of redundant (hardware) cards somehow teaches the
use of a software link. We disagree with the examiner. Further, the examiner maintains
that the teaching of a graphics display controller providing a sync signal teaches the
plurality of card display means. (See answer at page 4.) We disagree with the examiner.
While we agree with the examiner that since HyperCard technology was known, it would
have been obvious to a skilled artisan to implement this technology, if there were a
convincing line of reasoning or motivation to do so, we find that the examiner has not
provided such a convincing line of reasoning in this case.
The examiner has relied upon the teachings of Lubkin merely to teach the use of a
software tool in a “complex software system.” From our review of Lubkin, Lubkin teaches a
software configuration management tool which enables building a software system in a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007