Appeal No. 2005-1860
Application No. 09/754,890
combination, the Examiner equates the “error message” of Detlefs
and the markers of Chan with the claimed identifying the
positions and the paths through the program based on the inserted
flow control labels (answer, page 21).
Appellants argue that what the Examiner relies on Detlefs is
actually a “checker to report specific error messages” instead of
teaching an error message that includes a program trace that
identifies a path through the computer program, as recited in
claim 1 (brief, page 5; reply brief, page 2). Additionally,
Appellants assert that Chan is merely related to a self-verifying
controller that verifies valid branches along the execution path
after they are detected and isolated (brief, the last paragraph
of page 7). Appellants further assert that the combination of
Detlefs and Chan, instead of the claimed using flow control
labels inserted in the sub-equations and identifying conditional
branch points, provides for identifying the location of a
specific error type (Detlefs) or computing a marker at runtime to
detect wild branches (Chan) (brief, page 7).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007