Appeal No. 96-3077
Application No. 08/255,544
of’ such task,” such a distinction is merely
the separating into two tasks/devices a process
which was previously performed as integral to
another process/device. Such a distinction
is not patentably distinguishing, since it has
held that constructing a formerly integral
structure in various elements involves only
routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman,
168 USPQ 177, 179.
We have reviewed the Nerwin decision cited by the
Examiner and find that it does not support the Examiner’s
position. The factual situation in Nerwin involved the
question of whether an integral structure is precluded from
being separated and considered as separate elements. To the
extent there is any analogy to the internal selecting task in
Gammage et al. as an integral structure, the claimed invention
involves more than merely separating such task into separate
tasks. The differences between the claimed invention and
Gammage et al. lie in not merely the separating of an internal
message path selection task into separate tasks, but rather
the use of an external path selection feature to perform
message path selection external to and independently of the
message sending and receiving objects. In view of the
above, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007