Appeal No. 2004-1380
Application No. 09/513,425
for combining the teachings of Kampe and Shearer [brief, pages 6-
7].
The examiner responds that a system call as taught by
Shearer is a request for an activity within the meaning of claim
1 and the pseudo-driver of Shearer meets the claimed activity
driver. The examiner notes that the motivation for combining the
teachings is that the direct accessibility to the kernel as
taught by Shearer would have been desirable to the artisan
[answer, pages 8-10].
Appellants respond that the examiner has improperly relied
on extrinsic evidence to support the rejection. Appellants also
argue again that a system call in Shearer is not a request for
monitoring an activity using an activity driver [reply brief,
pages 1-3].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2,
7, 8, 11, 12 and 16-19 for essentially the reasons argued by
appellants in the briefs. We primarily agree with appellants
that the artisan having the teachings of Kampe and Shearer before
him would not have been motivated to make the modification
proposed by the examiner. We are of the view that the
modification proposed by the examiner could only come from an
improper attempt to reconstruct the claimed invention in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007