Appeal 2007-0928
Application 09/943,964
Accordingly, since it is our opinion that the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness has not been overcome by any convincing arguments
from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection, based on the
combination of Ullman and Sato, of independent claim 13, as well as
dependent claims 16, 18, and 21 not separately argued by Appellants, is
sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 in which the Short, Pocrass, and
Hirosawa references are variously added to the combination of Ullman and
Sato. Appellants’ arguments in response rely on the arguments made with
respect to the alleged deficiencies of Ullman in disclosing the fault detection
feature of determining whether a data message flows “entirely” through a
software stage component, which arguments we found to be unpersuasive as
discussed supra.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have not sustained the Examiners 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, rejection of claims 1-21, nor the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claim 22. With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections, we have sustained the rejections of claims 1-8 and 13-
21, but have not sustained the rejections of claims 9-12 and 23.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s decision rejecting appealed claims 1-23 is
affirmed-in-part.
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013