Ex parte ZANDEE - Page 7

          Appeal No. 1998-0626                                                        
          Application No. 08/593,114                                                  

               We find Appellant’s argument appropriate.  Appellant's                 
          argument that Doyle does not disclose a claimed element, is                 
          not a “non-obviousness” showing “by attacking references                    
          individually, as alleged by the Examiner.”  Furthermore, the                
          Examiner has still not shown that the node structures of Doyle              
          meet the claimed saved state elements.                                      
               One must first have a prior art disclosure of the                      
          required elements before one can consider the propriety of a                
          combination.  Since the Examiner has not shown where the cited              
          references disclose the limitations of claim 5, we cannot                   
          proceed to the question of motivation to combine the                        
               In view of the foregoing, since the prior art has not                  
          been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claims 5, we              
          will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.                       
          The remaining claims on appeal also contain the above                       
          limitations discussed in regard to claim 5 and thereby, we                  
          will not sustain the rejection as to these claims.                          


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007