Appeal No. 1998-3128 Page 11
Application No. 08/624,874
information for a predetermined time span ...." Accordingly,
claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 require storing status information for
a predetermined time span.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the limitations in the prior art. The examiner does not
allege, let alone show, that Austin teaches or would have
suggested storing status information for a predetermined time
span. He instead alleges that Kishi teaches "storing new
status information in the new status file for a new time span
(col. 6, lines 17-20) ...." (Examiner's Answer at 6.) To the
contrary, the cited portion of the reference merely discloses
that "the execution of a part program results in an optimum
reconfiguration of the storage area, and there is no need to
perform re-editing processing at the time of subsequent
execution of the same part program." Col. 6, ll. 17-20.
Because Kishi merely teaches reconfiguring a storage
area, we are not persuaded that teachings from the prior art
anticipate or would have suggested the limitations of "storing
status information for a predetermined current time span" or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007