Appeal No. 97-0784
Application 08/174,648
limitation was a common solution to a similar problem. It is
not sufficient to make up reasons for motivation, no matter
how plausible these explanations may seem in hindsight,
without some factual evidence to support those reasons. While
it may be unnecessary to resend a packet if the operation is
no longer required, the references do not check before
resending; rechecking would take time and programming, which
would complicate the system. The Examiner has made up reasons
why the limitation would have been obvious using Appellants'
own teachings, rather than providing evidence to show how one
skilled in the art would have independently arrived at
Appellants' invention. Thus, the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of
claims 9, 10, and 13-25 is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007