Appeal No. 2002-0378
Application No. 08/942,264
At the outset, we note, that appellants have elected to group all the claims as
standing or falling together. (See brief at page 9.) Appellants address independent
claim 1 which recites specific method steps rather than the apparatus of independent
claim 6. In fairness to appellants, we will address each of the independent claims and
the arguments advanced by appellants.
The examiner begins the rejection by addressing claim 6 which we find to be the
broadest independent claim. We will also begin with this claim. At the outset, we note
that the examiner has addressed the claimed invention, the prior art applied
thereagainst and addressed the differences therebetween. Therefore, we find that the
examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed invention.
Therefore, the burden shifts to appellants to rebut this prima facie case. Here we note
that appellants rely upon the arguments made with respect to independent claim 1, but
we note that claim 6 does not set forth the specific steps recited in the method of
independent claim 1.
The examiner maintains that Carroll teaches the same process as appellants’
claims with the exception of the use of an object oriented environment. (See rejection
at pages 2-3 and answer at page 4.) While we agree with the examiner that Carroll
teaches the general process and Owens clearly teaches and suggests the benefits of
the use of an object oriented environment, we do not find that Carroll teaches all
process of independent claim 1, but note that independent claim 6 merely recites a Data
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007