Appeal No. 2002-0807
Application No.08/672,588
disclosure in any of the cited references of monitoring for
interception the program designed to be run completely on the
first processor, and no disclosure of the claimed pre-defined
generic program running on the second processor....”
After careful review of the applied prior art references in
light of the arguments of record, however, we are in agreement
with the Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer. In our
view, Appellants’ arguments unpersuasively focus on the
individual deficiencies of the cited references. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. Each
reference must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly
teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981); In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1096, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). In this regard, as pointed out by the Examiner
(Answer, page 17), it is the Fin reference, not Crawford, that is
relied on as teaching the claimed “interception” feature.
Further, although Appellants assert (Brief, page 7) the lack of
any teaching in the prior art of an interception feature applied
to a program “designed to run completely on the first processor”,
there is no such requirement in the language of claim 27.
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007