Appeal No. 1997-3141
Application No. 08/327,347
Examiner’s line of reasoning is set forth at pages 4 and 5 of
the Answer as follows:
It would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to eliminate the host computer
altogether in Imai’s system in favor of allowing
the line controllers to share product information
with one another because Imai already permits
each assembly line to produce the same products
and so sharing product information would just
further stream-line the system’s efficiency.
In response, Appellants’ primary argument centers on
their contention (Brief, page 12) that the Examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since Imai, the
only applied prior art reference, lacks any suggestion of a
decentralized system as asserted by the Examiner. After
careful review of the Imai reference in light of the arguments
of record, we are in agreement with Appellants’ position as
stated in the Briefs. While we do not dispute the Examiner’s
contention, bolstered by the citation of the two computer
dictionaries at page 8 of the Answer, that decentralized
processing is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art,
such contention does not address the obviousness with respect
to the specific limitations of the claims. As pointed out by
Appellants (Reply Brief, page 4), the present appealed claims
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007