Appeal No. 2002-2259
Application No. 09/083,959
claimed. In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369-70, 55 USPQ2d 1313,
1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claims 1, 4, 17, 26 and 32 because the necessary
teachings and suggestions related to the claimed comparing the
types of current processors with a compatibility table and
determining the types of the processors that are compatible with
all current processors are not shown. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 4,
17, 26 and 32, nor of claims 5-10, 12-14, 19-21, 23, 24, 27, 28,
30, 31 and 33 dependent thereon.
With respect to the rejection of claims 15, 16 and 25, the
Examiner further relies on Hamilton for teaching automatically
configuring home computers by an “autoconfiguration” server
connected to the network home client computers via the Internet
(answer, page 7). However, Hamilton does not overcome the
deficiencies of the combination of the references as discussed
above as it fails to teach the claimed comparison of the types of
current processors with a compatibility table and determining the
types of the compatible processors. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 15, 16 and 25 cannot be sustained.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007