Appeal No. 2002-0807
Application No.08/672,588
Fin’s application instruction interception scheme into the system
of Crawford. Rather, it is the disclosed techniques in Laursen
of providing an illusion of effective execution of a program at a
client processor and the provision of an API instruction
interception routine in Fin that are being relied upon as a
suggestion for the proposed combination. “The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference
may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference....Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ
385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 967,
179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973).
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome
by any convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of representative independent claim
27, as well as claims 2-7, 9-11, 16-18, 22-24, 26, and 28-32
which fall with claim 27, is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of separately argued dependent claim 12, the
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007