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
references.
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.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007