Appeal No. 2002-2297
Application No. 08/980,585
suggested by the Examiner (Answer, page 5), all of the claim
limitations would not be taught or suggested by the applied
Abraham reference. Accordingly, it is our opinion that, since
the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent
claims 1, 5, and 11, as well as claims 2-4, 6-10, and 12-14
dependent thereon, cannot be sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 2-4, 8-10, and 12-35 in which Maritzen is
added to the Abraham reference, we do not sustain this rejection
as well. The Maritzen reference has been applied by the Examiner
to address the interface features of several of the rejected
claims. We find nothing in this reference, however, which would
overcome the innate deficiencies of Abraham as discussed supra.
In our view, even if the applied references could be combined in
the manner suggested by the Examiner, the end result would not
arrive at the claimed invention since, for all of the previously
discussed reasons, there would be no executable logging modules
that are configured to log data in accordance with different
criteria as specifically set forth, for example, in independent
claims 15, 21, and 25. Similarly, we agree with Appellants that
there is no indication from the Examiner as to how and in what
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007