Appeal No. 1997-3581
Application No. 08/010,291
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v.
Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933
(Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential
part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1 and 6 based on Heffernan, Appellant’s
primary contention (Brief, pages 9-11) is that, contrary to
the language of the appealed claims, Heffernan discloses the
creation of execution procedures after a user inputs a query.
We note that the relevant portion of each of independent
claims 1 and 6
sets forth “creating and updating by an evaluation execution
time a plurality of execution procedures when the view table
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007