Appeal No. 2004-1827 Page 5
Application No. 09/467,396
evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (final rejection, page 2) is that
“Kohl teaches customers can create and customize their programs,
compile them and create customer compatible executable software.”
To teach the limitation of pre-existing source code, the examiner
asserts (final rejection, page 3) that “[s]ource code must exist
(i.e., must pre-exist) before it can be compiled.” The examiner
further asserts (final rejection, page 12) that Kohl teaches
customer specific messages "because it would have been obvious .
. . to extend Kohl and disclose that source code may include
customer specific messages provided by the customer in a customer
specification.”
Appellant's position (brief, page 12) is that Kohl is not
directed to a system that provides “a customer compatible
executable that is compiled from pre-existing source code that
includes inserted customer specific message provided by the
customer in a customer specification,” but rather (id.) that
“Kohl discloses a web application that is customizable by a user
using, for example, a simple point and click interface.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007