Appeal No. 2003-1145
Application No. 09/080,241
forth in appealed claim 30.
Lastly, we find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ contention
(Brief, page 6) that, since Chan’s source program 202 is a
machine independent program, there is no disclosure that the
computer program 202 in Chan is a source program of a first
instruction set installed in a first computer, the first
instruction set being different from a second instruction set in
a second computer. While Appellants are correct that Chan’s
program 202 is a machine independent program, it is also clear
from the disclosure of Chan (column 9, lines 54) that this
machine independent program is generated from a producer site 206
having a native computer platform, i.e., a first instruction set.
Chan goes on to indicate that the target or second computers 216
and 226 have target computer platforms, i.e., second instruction
sets, which may not be the same as platform (first instruction
set) 206.
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner’s prima
facie case of anticipation has not been overcome by any
convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of the sole appealed claim 30, is sustained.
Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 30 is
affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007