Appeal No. 2002-0340
Application No. 09/094,827
multiplatform interpreter. This avoids the need for multiple versions of the application
program or the interpreter. It is this use of a single version of the interpreter and a
single version of the program, while distributing the interpreter and the program to more
than one platform, which appellant asserts to distinguish over the conventional
approach of delivering to each platform a platform specific version of the application
program. Yet, with no suggestion of a “multiplatform interpreter” in the applied
references, and an explicit admission by the examiner that Choudhury does not indicate
that the interpreter therein is a multiplatform interpreter, the examiner asserts that it
would have been obvious to transfer a multiplatform interpreter to a system for
decrypting the data that is transferred from a different system in order to make it
available on the receiving system.
Such an unsupported allegation, especially when the examiner is asserting the
obviousness of the very core of appellant’s claimed invention, is an improper basis for
concluding obviousness of the claimed subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§103.
In fact, appellant argues, at page 8 of the brief, that the interpreter of the prior art
is not a multiplatform interpreter and that it “isn’t even clear that a multiplatform
interpreter even exists in the prior art.” In response, the examiner contends that item
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007