Appeal 2007-1509
Application 09/427,114
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome by any convincing
arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection,
based on the combination of Orimo, FOLDOC, and Charles, of independent
claims 1 and 11, as well as dependent claims 2-9, 12-19, and 21-24 not
separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of appealed independent claims 25 and 26 based on the
combination of Orimo and Charles, we sustain this rejection as well. The
language of claims 25 and 26 differs slightly from that of previously
discussed independent claims 1 and 11 in that there is a requirement that a
second processor execute a second processing on data that was subjected to
a first processing by a first processor.
Similar to Appellants’ arguments directed to independent claims 1 and
11, Appellants’ arguments directed at claim 24 do not attack the Examiner’s
proposed combination of Orimo and Charles but, instead, focus on the
alleged deficiencies of Orimo in disclosing the claimed processing
requirements. We find, however, as did the Examiner (Answer 16), that
Orimo has an explicit disclosure of the processor 14 performing a second
processing on data that was subject to a first processing in processors 11-13.
For example, Orimo discloses (col. 2, ll. 9-16) that, after receiving messages
containing results of the processings by the first processors 11-13, the
second processor, i.e., processor 14, selects a message, and “executes a
program in the second processor by using the data contained in the selected
message.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013