Appeal No. 1999-1193
Application No. 08/429,504
Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1583, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir.
1996) and In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500,
1502 (Fed. Cir. 2988)) as the Appellant would apparently have
us believe. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d
588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to take
into account not only the specific teachings of the references
but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefore. In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CPA 1968).
In this case we agree with the Examiner that it would
have been prudent for an artisan to avoid the creation of
superfluous files, and desirable to create the suspend file as
needed because it would save the storage space and the
processing resources, rather than to have such a file
available and occupying the storage area at all times. Also,
Crump discloses, as the Examiner has stated, that
"[r]egardless of when the suspend file is allocated, the file
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007