Appeal No. 97-1303
Application 08/160,300
Essentially, we agree with the appellant's most
succinctly stated argument in the paragraph bridging pages 18
and 19 of the brief. There, appellant indicates that Murakami
is directed to conditional branching, whereas the subject
matter of each claim on appeal is directed to conditional
storage. As noted by appellant, conditional branching is
concerned with control of the program sequencing, whereas
conditional storage deals with that of the data stored.
The examiner's attempt to analogize conditional branching
operations to conditional storage operations is not well
taken. The urging at the bottom of page 6 of the answer that
it would have been obvious to have allowed a particularly
detailed
if-then-else conditional storage operation (claims 46-96)
fails because the examiner has already admitted that a generic
conditional store operation is not explicitly taught in the
reference, and yet, there is no additional evidence provided
by the examiner to persuade us that it would have been obvious
to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007