Appeal No. 2002-0695
Application No. 09/132,731
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that appellants do not argue the rejection of claims 1-42
based on obviousness-type double patenting, stating only that this rejection is “not
being appealed, and a Terminal Disclaimer will be submitted after a decision on appeal.
Accordingly, we will summarily sustain the rejection of claims 1-42 under obviousness-
type double patenting.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 1-9, 15-24 and 30-37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, we will not sustain this rejection as, in our view, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness.
It is the examiner’s position that Coker discloses the claimed subject matter but
for explicitly teaching how the file system identifier is selected, i.e., from a group
comprising an assignment literal, environment variable, data name. The examiner turns
to Archer for a teaching of “selective control of I/O responsive to the interface the
routine selectively calls I/O routines provided by the caller” [answer-page 10] and
concludes that it would have been obvious “to combine Coker and Archer because the
extended parameter list of Archer would enable the passing of all control statements
and enables the caller to specify the data definition name. Both systems increase the
efficiency of execution by expanding COBOLS I/O statements/parameters” [answer-
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007