Appeal No. 2002-1832
Application No. 09/318,980 Page 10
the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We begin with independent claims 3 and 4. The examiner's
position (answer, pages 6 and 7) is that Emerson does not
explicitly teach "first and second modems on request of host
computer" nor "a system repair program." To make up for these
deficiencies in Emerson, the examiner turns to Bizzarri for a
teaching of a computer system having a program used to diagnose
and repair computer systems. The examiner asserts (answer, pages
6 and 7) that it would have been obvious to provide the method
and apparatus for testing computers via a networking environment
as disclosed by Emerson to include the computer repair or
diagnosing program as taught by Bizzarri. According to the
examiner, by utilizing this approach, any error occurring in the
computer system can be identified, detected, corrected or
repaired. The examiner further asserts (answer, page 15) that
the use of a repair program is well known and does not require
"undue experiment."
Appellant asserts (brief, pages 13 and 14) that Bizzarri is
directed to telephone diagnostic and repair during the booting of
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007