Appeal No. 2003-0994
Application No. 08/579,544
page 4, lines 15-20. However we find that the claim language
precludes reading on an invoker that "considers all instances."
In such a situation, the invoking of a given instance is not
hidden from the invoker as required by the claim limitation.
Therefore, the Examiner has failed to meet the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, and we
will not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We note that we found none of Appellants' other arguments on
pages 4-13 of the brief to be persuasive. For example, the
argument at page 5, lines 9-11, is not commensurate in scope with
Appellants' claims. The field of endeavor referred to in these
lines of "migrating an object between a merged status . . . and a
split status . . ." is the field of endeavor of Appellants'
related patent 6,421,736. The field of endeavor of the instant
application is the broader "management of invoking of an
instance." The claims of the instant application are silent as
to status migration.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 20, 42, and 56 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007