Appeal No. 2000-0983
Application No. 07/883,623
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Fields2 4,400,724 Aug. 23, 1983
Nakayama et al. (Nakayama) 5,208,912 May 4, 1993
(filed Nov. 15, 1990)
Nakayama et al. (Nakayama) 5,363,507 Nov. 8, 1994
(filed Aug. 12, 1991)
Shaw et al. (Shaw) 5,611,038 Mar. 11, 1997
(effective filing date Apr. 17, 1991)3
Claims 14 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw
in view of the Nakayama references.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 22 and 24), an earlier Office Action (paper
number 18) and the answer (paper number 23) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 14 through 21.
Although we decided in the earlier appeal that any of the computers disclosed by Nakayama
‘507 can be considered a host computer, the claims on appeal now require the host computer to
perform specific tasks, and to share the results of those tasks with other computers. In the
2 Although the patent to Fields is listed under the references of record (answer, page 2), it
is not recited in the statement of the rejection (paper number 18).
3 Appellant’s argument (brief, page 30) that Shaw can not be used as a reference because
appellant’s filing date precedes Shaw’s filing date of August 29, 1994 is without merit because
Shaw’s effective filing date precedes appellant’s filing date.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007