Appeal No. 2005-1860
Application No. 09/754,890
basis supported by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to
be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Such
evidence is required in order to establish a prima facie case.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner must not only identify the
elements in the prior art, but also show “some objective teaching
in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art would lead the individual to combine
the relevant teachings of the references.” In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Upon a review of the applied prior art, we find ourselves
unpersuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning that the static checker
of Detlefs provides for other than reporting specific error
messages without allowing the error message to include a program
trace for identifying the path through the program.
Particularly, Detlefs labels the subformulas of the theorem
prover to track specific error source and type (page 29, section
6, 2nd paragraph). As pointed out by Appellants (brief, page 6),
Chan also fails to provides for the missing flow control labels
that identify a path through the computer program. Chan, at
best, discloses markers for verifying paths of execution by
comparing them with permissible execution paths in order to avoid
wild paths (col. 1, lines 38-53). Chan performs the verifying
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007