Appeal No. 2003-0873
Application No. 08/896,245 Page 5
by the examiner are an essential part of complying with the
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner’s position1 is that Smith teaches a persistent
server-side interface program that retains client/server state
information to facilitate further client/server interactions
(answer, page 7 and 8). The, examiner asserts that Smith teaches
a session manager (112) that retains client data previously
conveyed which reduces or eliminates a client’s need to navigate
through the entire hierarchy of states to reaccess information
(answer, page 7 and 8). According to the examiner, it would have
1
1 While referring to an issued U.S. patent, it is suggested that the
examiner reference specific sections through the use of column and line
numbers, instead of uncorrelated page and line numbers which fail to
specifically point out the sections relied on in the reference. “[T]he
examiner must cite the best references at his or her command. When a
reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed
by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly
as practicable...” 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007