Ex parte GLOWNY et al. - Page 9

          Appeal No. 94-4400                                                          
          Application 07/771,063                                                      

          10 in a manner which would relieve the examiner of the burden of            
          explaining why this distinction between the claimed invention and           
          the applied prior art would have been obvious to the artisan.  We           
          view the distinction as pointed out by appellants to be real and            
          worthy of an appropriate analysis within the meaning of Section             
          103.  Since the examiner basically has not treated this                     
          distinction as a difference between the claimed invention and the           
          applied prior art at all, we conclude that the applied prior art            
          and the analysis provide by the examiner fail to establish a                
          prima facie case of the obviousness of claim 10.  Therefore, we             
          do not sustain the rejection of claims 10-12.                               

          With respect to claim 13, the key recitations reside in                     
          clause (b)(2).  Appellants argue that the method of claim 13                
          precludes a higher priority node from taking control away from a            
          node that already properly has the primary status.  Appellants              
          argue that the scheme in Literati always transfers control back             
          to a higher priority control node whenever it is brought back on            
          line, and thus Literati actually teaches away from the claimed              
          invention [brief, pages 11-12].  The examiner explains the                  
          operation of the priority scheme in Literati but does not                   


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007