Appeal No. 96-3144
Application 08/322,111
In re Sprock 301, F.2d 686, 690-691, 133 USPQ 360, 364 (CCPA 1962).
The Examiner has set forth in the answer on page 7, line 20 - page 8, paragraph
one, a discussion of the combination of the three teachings and concludes that the "good
prediction of completion times would be desirable in the system of Yamaji et al. for such
things as load planning to maximize the average utilization of the processors and to
provide good real time response, Haynes et al. provides a[n] overview of a[n] algorithm
that results in a good prediction under variable load conditions." This combination for load
planning would not provide the skilled artisan with the motivation to notify the user since the
processor modification is the focus of the estimate.
Moreover, the estimates of Haynes merely estimate the time of completion of the
job without mention of any concern or adjustment for the effect of changes in the composite
multitask workload of the glass factory. Haynes does not disclose a multitasking
environment, but a substantially linear singular task of glass production rather than a
multitasking environment.
We find that the examiner has not met the burden of setting forth a prima facie case
of obviousness in rejecting claims 1-9. Our reviewing court has stated that obviousness is
tested by "what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those
of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007