Appeal No. 2002-0633
Application No. 08/978,012
formulation of the statement of the rejection also is subject to
the appellants’ assertion at page 6 of the principal brief on
appeal that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness within 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner merely
asserts at page 6 of the answer that, “the list of monitoring
destinations of Inakoshi shows how the architecture of Noble et
al. could be modified with the same outcome of automatically
notifying the user of changes to a desired URL,” (emphasis
added). A valid rejection within 35 U.S.C. § 103 demands a
conclusion that it would have been obvious to have performed the
modification by an artisan rather than mere speculation that one
reference “could be modified” in view of another.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007