Appeal 2007-2701
Application 10/079,811
ISSUE
We find the following issue to be dispositive with respect to all claims
on appeal:
Whether the proffered combination of Hollander and Platt teaches
and/or suggests recited limitation (i), i.e., “modeling operation of said
software component using a software simulator” in combination with the
language of limitation (iii) that requires modeling interaction between the
modeled operation of the hardware component and the modeled operation of
the software component (see independent claim 1; see also the equivalent
language recited in clauses (i) and (iii) of independent claims 15 and 16).
See Analysis infra.
STATEMENT OF LAW
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). To be nonobvious,
an improvement must be “more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.” Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
ANALYSIS
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 15,
and 16 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Hollander in view of
Platt.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the Examiner has failed to respond to
Appellants’ argument that limitation (i) of each independent claim is not
taught by Hollander or the cited prior art of record (Br. 10, 11, and 17).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013