Appeal No. 1997-2658
Application No. 08/478,974
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 2, 15, 16, 39, and 41,
the Examiner, as the basis for the obviousness rejection,
proposes (Answer, page 4) to modify the system of O’Hair by
relying on Spix to supply the missing teaching of utilizing a
program tuning advisor to provide optimization advice to a
user of the system. In the Examiner’s view, the skilled
artisan, in attempting to address source code bug problems in
O’Hair, would have found it obvious to utilize the interactive
visual display features of Spix’s tuning advisor.
In response, Appellants’ arguments against the Examiner’s
establishment of a prima facie case of obviousness center on
the alleged failure of the disclosure of the claimed feature
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007