Appeal No. 1999-1563
Application 08/509,619
teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995,
217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 2,
3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 29, and 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lemon . 15
Our analysis of claims 8, 14, 20 and 26, all of the other
independent claims, reveals that each of these claims recites
15In regard to Appellants' pivotal claim limitation of a
"core function being designed such that said core function is
not subject to modification by a consumer . . .", we note the
art recognized terminology of "black box" and "glass box".
The Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, second edition,
(1994), at page 47 defines "black box" as "A unit whose
internal structure is unknown but whose function is
documented. . . . software designers use this term to refer to
. . . program code that performs a certain function. The
internal mechanics of the function don't matter to a designer
who uses a black box to obtain the function." (Emphasis
added).
In addition, we note the IBM developerWorks article by
Eric E. Allen, at page 3, defines "black box systems" as those
in which "the outside programmer has neither the ability to
view or modify the underlying code". This article also states
that for a "glass box" the outside programmer "can view the
source in order to craft extensions', and cannot modify the
underlying code (emphasis added).
Although these terms per se do not read upon the core
function claim limitations recited in the final paragraph of
each of Appellants' independent claims, they may be relevant
to the claimed invention. As "black box" and "glass box" were
not used in the Examiner's EAST and IEEE/IEE text searches of
record, the Examiner should consider whether to use these
terms for an additional search of the prior art.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007