Appeal No. 1999-2076
Application No. 08/597,794
35 U.S.C. 103 as the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness.
The examiner contends that Greif discloses, in the
abstract, “base information, new version and change
determination” [answer-page 3] but does not show reporting
changed inputs and outputs. The examiner relies on Bittel for
showing reporting changes “in an analogous art” [answer-page
4] for the “purpose of reporting efficiency.” The examiner
relies on Borland for the dependency limitation, pointing to
the auditing feature of Borland.
We disagree with the combination. We do not find Bittel
to be “analogous art” since the instant invention is directed
to an electronic spreadsheet, whereas Bittel is not even in
the electronic arts, nor does it pertain to any problem sought
to be solved by appellants, describing, instead, a management
information and control technique for indicating whether a
condition or operation is within prescribed standards. We
find no reason for the skilled artisan to look to anything
within the disclosure of Bittel as a way of improving upon
anything disclosed by Greif.
Moreover, the instant claimed invention is concerned with
5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007