Appeal No. 95-4466
Application 08/135,188
appellants that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is not supported by the types of
factual findings necessary to reach this conclusion. Our understanding of the Examiner’s
reasoning for the determination of obviousness causes us to conclude that the Examiner
merely believes the claimed invention to be obvious because it seems that it would have
been obvious. Although we agree with the Examiner that the data may be stored
sequentially in main memory, the Examiner has not addressed the limitations set forth in
the language of the claim concerning the retrieval of subroutines from an auxiliary memory
and storage in the main memory. The prior art teachings of Griffin only teach the skilled
artisan to sequence through the function modules already stored in a library using an
execution program, but does not teach retrieving these function modules/subroutines or
any other subroutines from an auxiliary memory and then store them in main memory as
set forth in the language of claim 18.
The Examiner acknowledges the lack of disclosure in Griffin concerning the
interaction between the script, the executive program and the storage in memory. (See
answer at page 4.) Again, the Examiner has not addressed the retrieval from an auxiliary
memory and storage in main memory of the subroutines which correspond to
the entered common operation designation names as set forth in the language of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007