Appeal No. 2004-2267 Page 9
Application No. 09/651,184
directory to determine if a predetermined time delay has passed or, if so, generating
commands to remove data files from the temporary directory.
The absence of reviewing time stamps corresponding to the names of data files
stored in a temporary directory to determine if a predetermined time delay has passed
and, if so, generating commands to remove data files from the temporary directory
negates anticipation. Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 1; of
claims 2, 3, and 5-7, which depends therefrom; of claim 8; of claims 9, 10, 13, and 14,
which depend therefrom; of claim 15; and of claims 16-21, which depend therefrom.
B. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4, 11, 12, AND 22
"In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d
781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007