Appeal No. 2006-3076 Page 8
Application No. 10/004,948
disagree with Appellants and find that O’Sullivan teaches the input of the system
requirements are input by the designer. Additionally, we find no express limitations in
independent claim 1 as to “how” the information is gathered. Therefore, Appellants'
argument is not persuasive.
With respect to “how the information to produce a drawing of the proposed
computer network is collected and sent to the drawing program,” again we find no
express limitations in independent claim 1 as to “how the information to produce the
drawing of the proposed computer network is collected and sent to a drawing program”
(Brief, p. 15). Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Furthermore, we do
find that Flansburg clearly teaches in Figures 6 and 7 that the sketch documents are
edited and forwarded to graphics program. Therefore, we find that Flansburg teaches that
information to produce a drawing/display of the proposed computer network and
communication fabric is collected and sent to the drawing program. Therefore,
Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection under
obviousness of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Appellants argue that O’Sullivan does not
teach drawing with a drawing program. As discussed above, with respect to independent
claim 1, we find that O’Sullivan teaches a drawing program in the CAD system (Brief, p.
15). Furthermore, we find that Flansburg additionally teaches editing sketches which
would involve a drawing program. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive,
and we will sustain the rejections under obviousness of dependent claim 5 and dependent
claims 12, 19, and 26 which Appellants elected to group therewith.
With respect to dependent claim 7, Appellants maintain that the agent performed
a word search and did not find the words “policy”, “policies,” or a related word. We find
this argument to be unpersuasive since it does not address the merits of the rejections set
forth by the Examiner. The Examiner maintains that the feasibility test of O’Sullivan
would have been a set of policies and the fact that connections are scored and ranked for
selection is based on policies. We agree with the Examiner, and we find that Appellants
have not made a persuasive showing as to why the Examiner’s interpretation is
unreasonable. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007