Appeal No. 96-0258
Application 08/094,651
Independent claim 14 contains similar language.
The examiner’s response to appellants’ arguments includes statements that
appellants’ arguments lack supporting facts in that appellants point out the claimed
limitations “without supporting why the reference does not teach the claimed
limitation” [answer-pages 8-9]. The initial burden is on the examiner to establish, with
evidence, that the claimed subject would have been obvious within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103. Until the examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, Appellants
are under no burden to show why the reference does not teach the claimed invention.
Further, the examiner responds to appellants’ arguments as to why the instant
claimed invention patentably distinguishes over Sawada by contending that the use of
“known cross-reference information comprising offset information between the certain
ones of the virtual addresses and their corresponding physical addresses” was well known
to artisans. In support of this allegation, the examiner identifies three U.S. Patents
[Anthony and Ozawa at page 9 of the answer and Chang at page 11 of the answer]. If the
examiner is relying on these references in any way to support the rejection, there would
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007