Appeal No. 2006-1785 Page 18
Application No. 10/768,827
Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 665, 57 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
[emphasis added]. In the instant case, we find appellants' argument
unpersuasive that the examiner has failed to provide a proper motivation for
combining the teachings of McLain with the teachings of Ryzl. We note that
the examiner's rejection is based on the finding that Ryzl teaches every
element of the claimed invention except for the recited limitations of:
obtaining a response associated with said request from a data source, said
data source containing a plurality of requests acceptable to said target
computing system and a plurality of responses, each acceptable request being
associated with a response that describes the expected behavior of said
target computing system upon receiving said acceptable request [claim 1].
We note that we have found supra that these specific limitations are
taught by McLain. We further note that the examiner has cited McLain for
the purpose of showing that it was known to use a data source (i.e., see
command response table, fig. 14) that contains a plurality of requests
associated with responses that describe expected responses of a target
system being emulated. We agree with the examiner that the artisan would
have been motivated to modify Ryzl with the teachings of McLain because
McLain provides specific implementation details of a structure (e.g., see
command response table, fig. 14) and associated method of responding to
application requests intended for the target devices being emulated [see
McLain, fig. 14, Command Response Table, Command 1414 (i.e.,
corresponding to a request) and associated Response 1416; see also col. 10,
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007