Appeal 2007-1240
Application 09/733,596
ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial
burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument
shift to the Appellant. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See
also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the Examiner
must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence
of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are
deemed to support the Examiner’s conclusion.
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that the concept of verification taught by
Dole, which ensures that the result of a design conforms with the product
specification, meets the claimed “validation,” defined by Appellant as
ensuring compliance of a data file with an expected specification (Finding
No. 3). As noted in Finding No. 7, Dole’s design process inherently creates
computer data files, and Appellant admits that the data files to be validated
could “include files created by CAD tools in a design organization” (Finding
No. 4).
We do not agree with the Examiner that Dole teaches a plurality of
secondary networks (as recited in claim 1), each with an associated
secondary server. At most, Dole teaches one secondary (“mirrored”)
network (Finding Nos. 6 and 8). Dole therefore has a single secondary
network, not a plurality, and fails to meet the claim limitation.
Further, Dole does not teach that the mirrored design server is charged
with validating data files prior to their release to the primary design server.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013