Appeal No. 2002-0700
Application No. 09/145,102
incorporate the programming of Burke into Shaughnessy, we do not
see how this rather generic teaching of algorithm rules and coding
techniques in Burke discloses the initializing steps and
priorities as enumerated in claim 1 of the instant application.
The examiner has not explained how this teaching renders the
claimed subject matter, including the initializing of the core
variables of the second class object before the core variables in
the first class object.
The examiner has stated that this would allow Shaughnessy’s
system to “automatically handle priority rules and vary
traditional programming procedures” (Examiner’s Answer, page 5,
lines 7-8). This seems to us to be a suggestion to try a
different coding technique, not a teaching of the instantly
claimed method.
The burden is upon the Examiner to set forth a prima facie
case of obviousness. See In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175, 37
USPQ2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). As no prima facie case of
obviousness has been established, we reverse.
Summary of Decision
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007