Appeal No. 97-4408
Application No. 08/579,314
§ 103 is concerned.
It is our view that the examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of
instant claims 18 through 22, 28 through 33 and 39 and
appellant has not convinced us of any error therein.
Arguments that there are differences (e.g., time stamp
comparisons rather than update tables), per se, are
unpersuasive of nonobviousness without some convincing line of
reasoning to overcome the examiner’s prima facie case (e.g.,
that the time stamp and update table are both, broadly, update
tables). Similarly, arguments directed to limitations not
appearing in the claims under rejection are unpersuasive. The
examiner has apparently recognized that the instant invention
differs from that disclosed by the prior art and, wherein
patentably distinct limitations are included, the examiner has
not rejected those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, the
examiner views, as do we, the claims under rejection based on
that statutory section as being overly broad in view of the
applied references.
We have sustained both the rejection of claims 18 through
39 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007