Appeal No. 2004-1668
Application No. 09/466,529
The examiner argues that Pickett’s column 5, lines 15-18,
column 6, line 55 - column 7, line 55, column 8, lines 6 -31, and
column 11, lines 19-38, discloses the step in the appellants’
claim 18 of “parsing the plurality of fault messages for a target
to form a plurality of tallies associated with a plurality of
targets, the plurality of targets each define a specific piece of
equipment” (answer, page 8), and that Pickett’s column 8, line 56
- column 9, line 14 discloses “a parser connected to the
communication interface, the parser parsing the plurality of
fault messages for an event code, a target and a tally, the
parser determining a target type based on the event code” as
required by the appellants’ claim 23 (answer, page 7). We do not
find these disclosures in the portions of Pickett cited by the
examiner.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the appellants’ claimed invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007