Appeal No. 2000-2283
Application No. 08/497,287
We also agree with Appellants (Brief, page 9; Reply Brief,
page 7) that Osisek, applied by the Examiner to provide a general
teaching of the existence of a global machine and a global state
store, does not cure the deficiencies of Sandage discussed supra.
Given these deficiencies in the disclosures of the applied prior
art, we can find no teaching or suggestion, and the Examiner has
pointed to none, as to how and in what manner the Sandage and
Osisek references might be combined to arrive at the claimed
invention. The 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, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
It is also our view, that, even assuming, arguendo, that
proper motivation were established for modifying Sandage with
Osisek, there is no indication as to how such modification would
address the particulars of the claim language of independent claims
1, 7, 13, 19, and 25, each of which requires a particular
relationship between a called program and a calling program, and
the particular conditions under which information is transferred by
each of the calling and called programs to and from a global state
store. In order for us to sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007