Appeal No. 95-4010
Application 08/082,338
The Examiner has failed to show that the prior art
suggested the desirability of the Examiner's proposed
modification. Tanagawa teaches that the need of the
prevention circuit is not because of a presence of an
inoperable instruction. Instead, Tanagawa teaches that the
prevention circuit provides a measure for prevention of an
erroneous operation of the computer when an instruction may be
converted to another operable instruction due to undesirable
environments. Tanagawa does not suggest to those skilled in
the art to test the operational validity of the instruction
before it is executed. We cannot find that Appellants'
invention is obvious just because the Examiner puts together
the Appellants' invention using the Appellants' application as
a road map. This hindsight view is not evidence that those
skilled in the art would have reason to make the modification.
We are not inclined to dispense with proof by evidence when
the proposition at issue is not supported by a teaching in a
prior art reference or shown to be common knowledge of
unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing court requires
this
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007