Appeal No. 2003-1031 Page 16
Application No. 09/050,841
not employed as the principal evidence for a rejection, id., 165 USPQ at 421, but "only
to 'fill in the gaps' in an insubstantial manner which might exist in the evidentiary
showing made by the examiner to support a particular ground for rejection." M.P.E.P.
§ 2144.03(E) (8th ed., rev. 1, Feb. 2003).
. Here, rather than being insubstantial, sharing "state information . . . across non-
cooperating domains," (Supp. Appeal Br. at 9 (emphasis added)), is the raison d'ętre
of the appellants' invention. The appellants have expended extensive efforts to define
"[t]he phrase 'non-cooperating domains' . . . in the application and the file history. . . ."
(Id.) Furthermore, "[t]he meaning of non-cooperating is expressly recited in [each of]
the independent claims. . . ." (Id. at 21.) Because the "non-cooperating" nature of the
domains is important, it improper for the examiner to rely on official notice to teach the
corresponding limitation.
The examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Davis or Krick
cures the aforementioned deficiency of Giacoppo. Absent a teaching or suggestion of
domains having no knowledge of one another and being unable to communicate
directly state information between themselves, we are unpersuaded of a prima facie
case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the rejections of claim 18; of claims 19-21,
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007