Appeal No. 96-3323
Application 08/022,922
From the factual evidence as stated by the Examiner in the answer, it would not be
“necessary” to interface all the parts into an integral working whole. Therefore, as taught,
we find that it would not have been inherent in any of the reference teachings as asserted
by the Examiner.
Alternatively, if the Examiner is relying upon obviousness for the prior art meeting
this limitation, the Examiner has not set forth a convincing line of reasoning as to why the
skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the prior art systems as set forth by
the Examiner. Since the Examiner has stated that none of the prior art references teach
the “assembly structure database,” and the Examiner has asserted only that the “assembly
structure database” would have been “necessary to interface all the parts into an integral
working whole,” this statement is a merely a possible conclusion by the Examiner without
any supporting line of reasoning. The Examiner has not provided any discussion as to the
implementation of the prior art systems to the design of an object or objects that would
have plural parts which would have been desirable to relate to in some manner during the
design thereof.
For the above reason we reverse the rejection of claims 1-6 as set forth in the
Examiner’s answer. Also, since the Examiner has not discussed the “assembly structure
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007