Appeal No. 95-3535
Application No. 08/095,033
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 32 through 42
under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 because, in our view, the examiner has not
set forth a prima facie case of obviousness.
The examiner takes the position that since appellants admit,
at page 3 of the specification, that it was known to convert data
of upper level release systems to data of lower level release
systems where the operation is being performed at the lower level
release system, the only difference between the instant claimed
invention and that which is admitted to have been well known is
that, in the former, “the conversion is installed in the later
version computer instead of in the earlier version computer”
[page 3-answer].
Identifying the sole issue, with which we agree, as whether
it would have been obvious to install the conversion circuit and
have the conversion done at the later version computer (upper
level) instead of at the earlier version computer, the examiner
reaches the conclusion, erroneously, in our view, considering the
applied prior art, that it would have been obvious “to have the
conversion done at the newly relaesed [sic, released] system
because the old system, then, do not have to be recalled and
modified” [page 4-answer].
As simple as the solution may appear in hindsight, nothing
in the prior art identified at pages 2-3 of the specification
suggests performing the conversion at the later version level in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007