Appeal No. 2002-2168 Page 8
Application No. 08/961,743
and 84, the other independent claims, specify similar limitations. Accordingly, the
independent claims require a manager that assigns computing threads to sessions.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the
teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the claimed subject matter
to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, although the passage of Drury cited by the examiner teaches a manager,
we are unpersuaded that the manager assigns computing threads to sessions. To the
contrary, we agree with the appellants that the cited passage "merely describes a
transaction manager." (Appeal Br. at 12.) More specifically, the reference's "scheduler
coordinates with the 'transaction manager' to otherwise prevent the reallocation of the
same binding handle until [an] executing transaction is completed." Col. 6, ll. 16-19.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007