Appeal No. 2002-0340
Application No. 09/094,827
enabling the supplied data processing platform to use the
multiplatform interpreter to interpret the application program for execution
on the supplied data processing platform.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Koizumi et al. (Koizumi) 5,586,323 Dec. 17, 1996
Choudhury et al. (Choudhury) 5,509,074 Apr. 16, 1996
Skidmore 5,488,714 Jan. 30, 1996
Claims 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over either
one of Skidmore or Koizumi in view of Choudhury.
A rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. §112 has been withdrawn by the examiner
and is not before us on appeal.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellant’s grouping of the claims,
at page 4 of the brief, all claims will stand or fall together. Accordingly, we will focus on
independent claim 7.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. §103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007