Appeal No. 1997-1208
Application 08/077,219
from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art
as a whole or knowledge generally available to one having
ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley
Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta
Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657,
664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS
Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572,
1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by
the Examiner are an essential part of complying with the
burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
With respect to independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, the
Examiner, as the basis for the obviousness rejection, proposes
to modify the client-server system disclosure of East. In the
Examiner’s analysis (Answer, page 9), East differs from the
claimed invention in that, instead of a local creation of a
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007