Appeal No. 2003-1036
Application No. 09/330,865
The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to include the concurrent checkpointing of Zbikowski into
the checkpointing process of Myre. (Answer at pages 4-5.) From our review of the cited
portions of Zbikowski, we find no teaching or suggestion of the logic to carry out
concurrent assignment of sequence numbers as recited in independent claim 1.
Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the claimed invention, and we will not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 and claims dependent therefrom.
Additionally, we find similar limitations in independent claims 14, 27, 40, 50, 57, 64,
and 71 and find that the examiner has also not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the claimed invention. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of these
claims and their dependent claims.
With respect to dependent claims 12, 25, 38, 39, and 48 the examiner has added
the teachings of Mohan, but has not relied upon the teachings of Mohan to remedy to basic
deficiency in the base combination. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 12, 25, 38, 39, and 48.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, 14, 16-19,
21-25, 27, 29-32, 34-41, 43, 44, 46- 48, and 50-55, 57-62, 64-69 and 71-76 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007