Appeal No. 2006-3284
Application No. 10/061,871
III. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of
Kamper, Sun and Trimberger Proper?
With respect to claim 19, Appellant argues in the Appeal and
Reply Briefs that neither Kamper nor Sun nor Trimberger teaches
the claimed invention. Particularly, Appellant asserts that the
combination of Kamper and Sun does not teach the limitation of
generating a server configuration profile image based on a
current configuration server. We have already addressed this
argument in the discussion of claim 18 above, and we disagree
with Appellant. Further, Appellant argues that Trimberger does
not cure the deficiencies of the Kamper and Sun combination. We
find no such deficiencies in the stated combination for
Trimberger to cure. 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 19. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 19.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4 through 9, 31 through
34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We have also sustained the Examiner’s
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007