Appeal No. 2004-1417
Application 09/365,784
incorrect and are unsupported by the applied prior art [reply
brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 4-12 for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in the
briefs. Most importantly, we agree with appellants that there is
no reasonable motivation on this record for combining the
teachings of Nakahara, Ikeda and Harada. The examiner’s
rationale for modifying the primary reference Nakahara is based
on an alleged deficiency in the operation of Nakahara which is
not evident from the teachings of the reference. The examiner
asserts that a need exists in Nakahara for allowing a subsequent
process to complete the functions of the terminated process.
Nakahara discloses abnormal termination, but Nakahara does not
suggest that a need exists for completing the terminated process.
Based on this unsupported finding of the examiner, the examiner
proceeds to pick and choose portions of other prior art
references which have nothing to do with the teachings or
problems solved by Nakahara. It is evident to us that the
combination proposed by the examiner could only have come from an
improper attempt to recreate the claimed invention in hindsight.
We can find nothing in the applied prior art which would have led
the artisan to make the combination proposed by the examiner.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007