Appeal No. 2002-0340
Application No. 09/094,827
215 in Figure 3 of Choudhury “functions as a multi platform interpreter (one version) for
systems accessing it’s [sic, its] data, see col. 3 line 66-col. 4 line 12. This feature also
inherently indicates that application and data is specifically created for the specific
machine to enable interpretation by the various (multi) platforms” (Answer-page 4).
We have reviewed the indicated portions of Choudhury. We not only fail to find
the alleged teaching of anything functioning as the claimed “multiplatform interpreter,”
but we fail to find anything within Choudhury’s system for protecting electronically
published materials that would have led the artisan to modify anything in Skidmore that
would result in the instant claimed subject matter.
Moreover, claim 7 requires a “pre-specified abstract machine having a
predetermined instruction set and a predetermined data set,” wherein first and second
data processing platforms are instances of the pre-specified abstract machine. It is
unclear to us where such a limitation is suggested in the applied references. The
examiner’s response is that the “abstract machine feature is considered inherent” (Final
Rejection-page 2). This is insufficient to demonstrate obviousness when the appellant
argues, and thus challenges, this assertion. Frankly, we do not understand how the
examiner finds the claimed abstract machine feature to be “inherent” in Skidmore.
For at least the reasons supra, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 7-10
under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Skidmore and Choudhury.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007