Appeal No. 2002-0580
Application No. 08/980,336
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 21, mailed Nov. 9, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 20, filed Oct. 16, 2001) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that it the examiner’s burden to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of the claimed invention and that the examiner has not met this initial
burden. (See brief at page 5.) We agree with appellant. Appellant argues that the
claimed invention requires that the unique identifier include a network identifier as well
as a system identifier and an object identifier. (See brief at page 5.) Appellant argues
that the system identifier and object identifier of Sidhu in combination with the process
identifier and object identifier of Munroe would not have suggested the unique identifier
which includes a network identifier as well as a system identifier and an object identifier.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007