Appeal No. 95-4466
Application 08/135,188
claim. The Examiner has merely addressed the generalized inputting of a program from
an external memory and set forth the location where it was known to store programs
generally. (See answer at page 4.) Clearly, the Examiner has not addressed the
limitations set forth in claim 18. Therefore, it is clear that the prior art applied against the
claim does not teach nor fairly suggest the claimed invention as set forth in claim 18
regarding the method of creating a control program where subroutines are retrieved from
an auxiliary memory and storing in main memory the subroutines which correspond to the
entered common operation designation names.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claim, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the Examiner. Upon evaluation of all the
evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the Examiner is not
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 18.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
CONCLUSION
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007