Appeal No. 1999-1193
Application No. 08/429,504
insufficient basis for a finding of obviousness ...." The
Appellants' position is that, in Crump, suspend file 294
already exists whereas in the claimed invention a suspend file
is created only when a determination is made that the storage
of the operating state of the processing system is possible.
The Examiner's response, answer page 7, is that "[i]f data is
never written
to a file the creation of the file would be superfluous. In
particular, if there is additional processing such as locating
contiguous blocks associated with it creating such a file
would be the cause of verhead [sic, overhead]. The deletion
of the file would also be the cause of unnecessary overhead
when the system is being shut-down. As mentioned above, Crump
teaches that suspend file may be allocated at other times
(col. 46, lines 51-54)."
It has been settled that while there must be come
teaching, reason, suggestion, or motivation to combine
existing elements
to produce the claimed device, it is not necessary that the
cited references or prior art specifically suggest making the
combination (see B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007