Appeal No. 2004-2175
Application 09/086,627
reasons advanced with respect to claim 1, which we have just
found to be insufficient to persuade us that the examiner's
position is in error with respect to the rejection of
representative claim 1 on appeal. Furthermore, no arguments
are presented for our consideration in the second stated
rejection as to the additionally relied upon reference to Hauser.
As a final matter, we reverse the rejection of argued
dependent claim 14 and its corresponding features recited in
independent claim 16. The positions set forth by the examiner at
pages 7 and 8 of the answer and the corresponding responsive
arguments at pages 11 and 12 of the answer do not persuade us of
the unpatentability of claims 14 and 16. In fact, it appears to
us that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of these claims.
In studying the examiner's initial statement of the
rejection at page 7 of the answer, the examiner recognizes that
Culbert does not actually teach the essential feature of claim 14
that the reallocation occurs irrespective of an amount of
computer resources necessary for the second process to run on the
computer network. This admission by the examiner is further
stated to be recognized at page 11 of the answer. The examiner's
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007