Appeal No. 95-3641
Application 07/992,069
modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive
at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some
teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole
or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Uniroyal Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v.
Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an essential part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to claims 1-8, the examiner’s rejection
notes that WP 5.1 has the ability to store data files in either a
version specific format or in ASCII format which is a version
independent format. Although WP 5.1 typically only stores files
in a single one of the formats, the examiner observes that files
in WP 5.1 can be automatically stored and retrieved in different
formats using conventional macros. The examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to the artisan to use the features of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007