Appeal No. 2006-3284
Application No. 10/061,871
the removable storage device necessarily amounts to locating a
corresponding configuration file from among a plurality of
configuration files stored on the removable storage device when
different servers are being configured. Consequently, we do not
find error in the Examiner’s stated position, which concludes
that Kamper teaches the limitation of storing a plurality of
server profile images on the ROM.
It is therefore our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would have suggested to the ordinarily skilled
artisan the invention as set forth in claim 1. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4 through 9, 31
through 34.
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 18, 20
through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Kamper and Sun Proper?
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007