Ex Parte GELISSEN - Page 7




                 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