Appeal No. 1997-0240
Application No. 08/163,761
provided any indication as to how this and the other cited
portions in the Answer might be interpreted to meet the
requirements of the claims. In any case, regardless of the
merits of such an interpretation of the teachings of Parad, no
convincing reasoning has been supplied by the Examiner as to
how or why the skilled artisan would apply such teachings to
the admitted prior art. The mere fact that the prior art may
be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not
make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested
the desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 23 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We are left to
speculate why the skilled artisan would modify the client
server communication system of the admitted prior art with the
resource allocation teachings of Parad. The only reason we
can discern is improper hindsight reconstruction of
Appellant’s claimed invention.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007