Appeal No. 1998-0717
Application 08/099,841
software entities wherein each part has an associated part
kind attribute and an associated part type attribute as set
forth in the claimed invention.
Even if we could somehow agree with the examiner that
his broad interpretation of the claim language is correct, we
would not agree with his conclusion that the claimed invention
is suggested by the applied prior art within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103. We do not see the motivation for combining the
applied references as proposed by the examiner. Instead, the
rejection appears to be a selective picking and choosing from
disparate prior art teachings to reconstruct appellants’
invention in hindsight.
For all the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain
the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, 20 and 28, or of
any of the claims which depend therefrom, based on the prior
art
applied by the examiner. Therefore, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1-31 is reversed.
REVERSED
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007