Appeal No. 2002-0580
Application No. 08/980,336
The examiner maintains that Munroe teaches that it is desirable to be able to
uniquely identify objects across some domain including a network of systems. (See
answer at page 4.) While we agree with the examiner that Munroe provides a clear
motivation for the unique identifier, Munroe also provides teachings of various
methodologies to perform this goal, but we find no specific teaching or suggestion of
the use of three identifiers or a suggestion to include a network identifier in addition to
two other identifiers.
With respect to the examiner’s response to appellant’s argument concerning no
reasonable expectation of success, we find that the examiner is merely speculating as
to the extension of the unique identifier to include the network identifier. From the
teachings of Munroe, we do find a motivation for a unique identifier across a network of
systems, but no realization of the use of a network identifier in combination with other
identifiers to make the composite which uniquely identifies the object. Therefore, we
find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the
claimed invention, and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 8 and
16 and their respective dependent claims which have similar limitations.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007