Appeal No. 1997-4217
Application No. 08/307,178
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments [brief, pages 3 to
10 and reply brief, pages 1 to 9] and the Examiner’s position
[answer, pages 2 to 9 and supplemental answer, pages 1 to 4]
and
find that the suggested combination of Judd and Catlin does
not meet the claimed method step to “back up said first
simulator to said verified simulation time” (claim 1). The
Examiner alleges at various places [answer, page 3 and
supplemental answer, page 2] that “Judd disclosure would
obviously imply the claimed back-up simulation process” [id.
at 3] and that “Judd simulation system could be capable of
backing up the other simulators in case of output state change
. . .” [id. at 2]. However, we agree with Appellant that
“[n]owhere does the undersigned attorney find anything in the
cited portions of Judd to support the ‘backup’ phrase in the
above recited sentence in the Examiner’s Answer” [reply brief,
page 6]. In fact, we also note, as does Appellant [brief,
pages 4 to 5], that in Judd “[p]art of the centralized and
local synchronization managers’ task is to ensure that the
simulated system continually moves forward in time and never
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007