Appeal No. 95-5061
Application 07/825,979
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining obviousness,
the claimed invention should be considered as a whole; there is
no legally recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance
Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d
1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Appellants argue on pages 6-10 of the brief and pages 2-6 of
the reply brief that neither Luke nor Raeder teaches or suggests
steps (a), (b) or (c) as recited in Appellants' claim 1. In
particular, Appellants' argue that the references fail to teach
that the executing threads be represented by a model of the
system or that a method step of animating the selected executing
thread by moving a symbol for a transaction along arcs connecting
nodes until blocked by the occurrence of an event.
In the answer, the Examiner argues that Luke teaches
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007