Appeal No. 2003-0873
Application No. 08/896,245 Page 9
Thus, we agree with appellants (brief, page 10) that “[a]pellants
submit that Smith, read as a whole and without benefit of
hindsight from appellant’s disclosure, discloses a session
manager (which is persistent) and separate CGI processes which
are not persistent, and is utterly lacking any suggestion to make
the CGI processes persistent.”
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of independent
claim 8. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 8, and claims 3-5
dependent therefrom, is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 11-13, 15, 17, 18,
20, 26-28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Smith in view of Montulli. However, the addition of Montulli
provides no teaching or suggestion to overcome the deficiencies
of Smith with respect to the independent claim 8 as discussed,
supra. Therefore, we find that the teachings of Smith and
Montulli fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of
claims 11-13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 26, 28 and 30. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 11-13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 26-28 and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007