Appeal No. 95-3641 Application 07/992,069 WP 5.1 in a manner to carry out the claimed invention [final rejection, pages 2-3]. Appellant responds that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Specifically, appellant argues that 1) The examiner has not shown any suggestion in the prior art to automatically store data in two formats in a file; 2) The examiner has not shown any compelling motivation to write a macro to automatically store data in two formats; 3) The examiner is using hindsight reconstruction; and 4) The examiner has mischaracterized appellant’s invention as a design choice [brief, pages 5-7]. Appellant also argues that even the obviousness of writing a macro in WP 5.1 would not have suggested the invention as recited in claims 1-8. The examiner does not respond specifically to these points argued by appellant, but rather, argues that the known use of a universal data format as a translation bridge between different data formats would have made it an obvious design choice to employ any of a combination of multiple data formats [answer, pages 3-6]. When the evidence as a whole is considered and the relative persuasiveness of the examiner’s and appellant’s arguments are factored in, we agree with appellant that the 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007