Appeal No. 97-1657 Page 10
Application No. 08/216,735
variables. (Final Rejection at 3.) As aforementioned, the
reference’s local store and remote database contain the same
data. This differs from the interrelated variables that
define a graphic object as specified in claim 1. Rather than
being copies of the same variable, the claimed variables are
distinct and can contain different data. (Appeal Br. at 10.)
As such, the message exchange protocol would not have
suggested the combination of Gay with Hogan.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner failed to
identify a proper teaching, suggestion, or incentive
supporting the combination of Gay with Hogan. Therefore, this
statement of the examiner’s rejection does not amount to a
prima facie case of obviousness. Because the examiner has not
established a prima facie case, the rejection of claims 1-20
over Hogan and Gay is improper and is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007