Appeal No. 1999-2076
Application No. 08/597,794
identifying changes between different versions of user-named
blocks of cells and we find nothing within the teachings of
any of the three applied references remotely suggesting
identifying changes between different versions of such cells.
Nor do we find the “automatic” nature of the claimed invention
suggested by any of the applied references. The instant
claims require “automatically determining by the system
cells...which have been changed...” The examiner’s response
is to merely allege that automation of a manual process is
“inherently obvious” [answer-page 5]. However, the instant
claims do not merely require simply that a process heretofore
applied manually be applied automatically. The claims in
question require a specific tracking of different versions of
a data model “automatically” and that it is “automatically”
determined “by the system” that cells of the data model have
changed. If this is obvious over the applied references, the
examiner must set forth a coherent rationale in more detail
than that it is “inherently obvious” to do so.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1-34 under
35 U.S.C. 103 and we have remanded the case back to the
examiner for a determination as to whether the terminal
6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007