Appeal No. 1998-3383
Application 08/352,662
and "User Defined Process Variable", we find that neither
Stevens nor Bristol teach these limitations. We note that the
Examiner must accept the interpretation of these limitations
in a manner consistent with Appellant's specification and with
the ordinary usage of the terms in the computer operating
system art.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's combination of
Stevens and Bristol is not proper. Appellant argues that it
is the burden of the Examiner to explain why the combination
of the teachings is proper. Appellant argues that the
Examiner does not cite any particular knowledge that is
generally available to a person of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was
made that might form a basis for the Examiner's combination of
cited references.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007