Appeal No. 2006-1778
Application 09/776,364
Next, we turn to the rejection of claims 1 through 14, 17 through 19, 23, 24,
and 27 through 32 relying upon Gartner in view of Fitting. For the reasons set forth
by the examiner in the answer and supplemental answer, we sustain this rejection as
well as the fifth stated rejection of claims 20, 21, 25 and 26, further relying upon
Walls. Page 20 of the principal brief on appeal does not provide any substantive
argument as to the fifth stated rejection, relying apparently upon the arguments
presented as to the fourth stated rejection relying upon Gartner and Fitting.
We agree with the examiner’s reasoning of combinability at pages 8 through
11 of the initial answer regarding the particular teachings and showings and reasoning
of combinability as it applies to Gartner in view of Fitting with respect to the fourth
stated rejection. As argued by appellant beginning at page 16 of the principal brief on
appeal, we recognize that Gartner does not apparently teach the applicability of his
invention to first and second test systems. To the extent the examiner appears to rely
upon the ability of the reference to relate to plural applications alone, perhaps within
the same system, as comprising plural test systems the examiner’s view is misplaced.
Gartner appears to focus upon one test system but the ability to perform a test with
respect to a plurality of separate users.
On the other hand, the reference to Fitting plainly teaches the ability in figure 1
to apply his teachings to a plurality of test systems represented by elements 106
through 109. Each of these test systems may use the same test data to test the same or
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007