Appeal 2007-0477
Application 10/003,510
1 Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The operative question in this “functional
2 approach” is thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use
3 of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id.
4 Under this framework, once an Examiner demonstrates that the
5 elements are known in the prior art and that one of ordinary skill could
6 combine the elements as claimed by known methods and would recognize
7 that the capabilities or functions of the combination are predictable, then the
8 Examiner has made a prima facie case that the claimed subject matter is
9 likely to be obvious. The burden then shifts to the Appellant to show that
10 the Examiner erred in these findings or to provide other evidence to show
11 that the claimed subject matter would have been nonobvious.
12
13 ANALYSIS
14 As to claim 10, the Examiner correctly shows where all the claimed
15 features appear in the Porras prior art reference. (See Findings of Fact
16 above.).
17 As to claim 1, the Examiner correctly shows where all the claimed
18 features except “archiving” appear in the Porras prior art reference.
19 As we have already found, Porras explicitly describes that system 10
20 includes systems 22 and module 32. Thus, contrary to Appellants’
21 contentions, Porras teaches a decode engine integrated within an intrusion
22 detection application. Appellants have not established that the Examiner
23 erred with respect to this contention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013