Appeal 2007-1318
Application 09/726,779
to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention,
i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Id. at 1313, 75
USPQ2d at 1326.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-5,
7-14, 16-18, 20-27, 29-31, 33-40, and 42-59 as being anticipated by Blowers
and in rejecting claims 6, 19, and 32 as being obvious over Blowers.
Reviewing the documents of record and the findings of facts cited above, we
find that the Appellants have shown that the Examiner failed to make a
prima facie showing of anticipation with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, 16-
18, 20-27, 29-31, 33-40, 42-47, 49, and 52-59 and failed to make a prima
facie showing of obviousness with respect to claims 6, 19, and 32 because
Blowers does not teach or suggest each and every limitation of these claims,
as will be explained below. However, we find that the Appellants have not
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 48, 50, and 51 as being
anticipated by Blowers.
Independent claim 1 recites automatically generating a program
"wherein the program is operable to execute independently of the
prototyping application." The Examiner found that Blowers discloses that
the program is operable to execute independently of the prototyping
application because the machine vision system of Fig. 2 "is a separate
system, which is associated with the program, created but is separate from
the program and is independently executed from the machine vision
system." (Answer 16.) Claim 1 also recites automatically generating a
graphical user interface for the program with a graphical user interface
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013