Ex parte SIRKIN - Page 5




              Appeal No. 96-3144                                                                                          
              Application 08/322,111                                                                                      


              provide the desired periodically updated best estimate of the time remaining to complete                    
              a task as the multitasking workstation processor undergoes changes in the data                              
              processing workload being executed.  (See brief at page 3, paragraph one.)                                  
                     The Examiner recognizes appellant's argument concerning the lack of a teaching                       
              concerning successive estimates, but does not directly address the argument in the                          
              answer.  (See answer at page 8, paragraphs 2-3.)  The answer discusses dynamic control                      
              and multitasking, but does not address "successive estimates."  It is not clear if                          
              the discussion was intended to assert that dynamic control and multitasking imply                           
              successive estimates and subsequent communication thereof to a user, and we cannot                          
              speculate as to the Examiner's findings beyond the written record.  Our reviewing court has                 
              repeatedly stated that                                                                                      
                     Obviousness is a legal conclusion which we are required to draw from                                 
                     facts appearing in the record or of which judicial notice may be taken.  Thus                        
                     before we can conclude that any disclosed invention is "obvious" under the                           
                     conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. § 103, we must evaluate facts from which                           
                     to determine 1) what was shown in the prior art at the time the invention was                        
                     made, and 2) the knowledge which a person of ordinary skill in the art                               
                     possessed at the time the invention was made.                                                        
                     Here, neither the record nor the facts of which we are able to take judicial                         
                     notice supplies the factual data necessary to support the legal conclusion of                        
                     obviousness of the invention at the time it was made.  We are unwilling to                           
                     substitute speculation and hindsight appraisal of the prior art for such factual                     
                     data.  For this reason we think there is a doubt as to the factual basis                             
                     supporting the conclusion of the board of appeals that the invention would                           
                     have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of metal spinning.  Under                      
                     these circumstances, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant.                         
                     (citations omitted)                                                                                  

                                                            5                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007