Appeal No. 2000-2283
Application No. 08/497,287
stem from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art
as a whole or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary
skill in the art. Uniroyal Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d
1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S.
825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). 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).
With respect to each of the appealed independent claims 1, 7,
13, 19, and 25, the Examiner, as the basis for the obviousness
rejection, proposes to modify the virtual machine disclosure of
Sandage by relying on Osisek to supply the missing teachings of a
global machine and a global state store. According to the
Examiner, the skilled artisan would have been motivated and found
it obvious to modify Sandage with Osisek “... because it
incorporates the ability to control an [sic, a] virtual machine
environment comprising of [sic] a plurality of virtual machines.”
(Answer, page 4).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007