Ex parte BLAHNIK et al. - Page 5


                    Appeal No. 2000-0402                                                                                                      
                    Application 08/720,399                                                                                                    

                    maintaining the average rate of variables within the parameters and thereby the process and                               

                    operation of the machinery is monitored and controlled rapidly [answer-page 6].                                           

                             While using an extraordinary amount of words to describe the alleged operation of the                            

                    devices disclosed by the applied references, the examiner has clearly failed to establish any                             

                    semblance of a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed subject matter                          

                    and, as such, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                                     

                             In stating the rationale for the rejection of the claims, the examiner is clearly reciting                       

                    language from a variety of the instant claims and attributing the characteristics described by this                       

                    claim language to the various references, but the examiner only generally identifies large portions                       

                    of the applied references without specifically pointing to any language within the disclosures of                         

                    those references which teaches the various claimed elements.  In applying the references to                               

                    claims 1, 28 and 29, at pages 4-6 of the answer, the examiner does not even distinguish                                   

                    between the different claim language of the claims so it is unclear what portions of the references                       

                    are being applied to what portions of the claims.  In making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103,                           

                    the examiner should clearly identify particular elements in the references which correspond to                            

                    specific claim elements, identify the differences, if any, and explain why the instant claim                              

                    language, as a whole, would have been obvious in view of the applied references.                                          

                             In the instant case, the examiner has applied Oba as teaching a part file staging area, a                        

                    product engineering workstation coupled to the part file staging area, and a product engineering                          

                    workstation operated by a user.  Although the examiner points to column 1, line 10 to column 2,                           

                    line 51, and Figure 1 of Oba for a teaching of the part file staging area, the examiner identifies                        


                                                                      5                                                                       



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

Last modified: November 3, 2007