Appeal No. 2001-0966
Application No. 08/852,660
® nd
Dictionary (Microsoft Press , 2 Ed. 1994) also indicates the art
recognized distinction between system software, such as TP
monitors, and application software.1
In view of the above discussion, it is our view that, since
all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 23, and 29 are not
taught or suggested by the applied prior art Duxbury reference, the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims
1, 23, and 29, as well as claims 2, 4, 8-11, 13-21, 24-28, and 30
dependent thereon, is not sustained.
In summary, we have not sustained the Examiners’ 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of any of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 8-11, 13-21, and
23-30 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007