Appeal No. 2006-3096
Application No. 10/116,676
Examiner has not shown the batch program modules with the recited functions as set
forth in independent claim 18. The Examiner’s response seems to generally address
Appellant’s argument and the Examiner maintains that “both Barry et al. and Basani et al.
teach renaming file, especially, Basani et al. allow access or switching access during the
renaming process” (Answer 15). We find that the Examiner has not provided a clear
teaching or suggestion to support this position. Therefore, Examiner’s argument is not
persuasive, and we cannot find that the Examiner has met her initial burden of
establishing a prima facie of obviousness of independent claim 18. Therefore, we cannot
sustain the rejection of independent claim 18 and its respective dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007