Appeal 2007-0760
Application 09/974,373
contends that the Barker-Foley combination does not teach a heartbeat signal
that contains data identifying resources currently being used by the client
computer. (Br. 16 and 18, Reply Br. 2.), as recited in representative claims 1
and 8. Further, Appellant reiterates these same arguments against the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through 7 and 9 through 32.
The Examiner, in contrast, contends that Barker substantially teaches
the limitations of representative claims 1 and 8. (Answer 3 and 9.) The
Examiner further submits that Foley’s teachings complement Barker’s
system. (Answer 4.) The Examiner therefore concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine teachings of the cited
references to arrive to the claimed invention, as recited in representative
claims 1 and 8. Similarly, the Examiner concludes that the combination of
Barker and Foley renders claims 2 through 7 and 9 through 32 unpatentable.
(Id.)
We reverse.
ISSUES
The pivotal issue in the appeal before us is as follows:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner failed to establish that one of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the present invention, would have
found that the combination of Barker and Foley renders the claimed
invention unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013