Appeal No. 2001-1478
Application No. 08/853,539
appellants. Appellants argue that the references relate to completely diverse
teachings. (See brief at page 8.) Again, we disagree with appellants. Appellants
argue that the examiner's statement of motivation for the combination is not "founded in
the prior art." (See brief at pages 8-9.) Again, we disagree with appellants and point
out that the examiner's statement appears to be “founded” in the abstract of Gough
which states: "[a] computer-user interface facilitates interaction between the user and
the computer in a manner which enables the computer to assist the user in
accomplishing desired goals. . . With the flexibility offered by this arrangement, the
user can customize the operation of a computer to suit his or her particular needs."
Therefore, we find that the applied prior art provides a foundation for the examiner's
stated line of reasoning. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive,
Appellants argue that the examiner incorrectly equates event groups with routing
types. (See reply brief at page 2.) We disagree with appellants. Appellants argue that
the routing of events of the claimed invention relates to "which application is notified."
We find no language in independent claim 1 to support this argument. (See reply brief
at page 2.) Appellants argue the routing is performed as a group by Daniel. (See
reply brief at 3.) This argument is not persuasive as discussed above. Appellants
argue that nowhere does Daniel teach or suggest "assigning a routing type
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007