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. 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007