Appeal No. 2000-1704
Application No. 08/484,999
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). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually
made by appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 24 based
on the IBM Design Guide and the IBM Model Guide. With respect to
independent claim 1, the examiner finds that the IBM Design Guide
teaches the claimed invention except for the step of verifying
whether the second program can compile into a second version object
server that provides at least each interface of the first version
object server before the generation of the set of interfaces for
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007