Appeal No. 2001-2127
Application No. 08/660,730
The examiner relies on the following references:
Brandle et al. (Brandle) 5,218,699 Jun. 08, 1993
(filed June 8, 1992)
Tantry et al. (Tantry) 5,398,336 Mar. 14, 1995
effective filing date Oct. 16, 1990)
Duault et al. (Duault) 5,428,781 Jun. 27, 1995
(effective filing date Aug. 6, 1990)
W. Stevens, UNIX Network Programming 692-708 (Prentice Hall, Inc.
1990)
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
offers Brandle, Tantry and Duault with regard to claims 1-3, 5-7,
11, 13, 17 and 18, adding Stevens to this combination with regard
to claims 9, 10 and 14.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent
upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set forth
in Graham v, John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary skill in
the pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior art or
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007