Appeal No. 1996-4025
Application 07/995,591
teach or suggest performing the operations asynchronously as
claimed by Appellants.
On pages 3 and 4 of the answer, the Examiner states
that Hedlund discloses an apparatus and method for
synchronously transferring data. On page 8 of the answer, the
Examiner argues that Hedlund expressly discloses that the
Hedlund interface can handle both synchronous and asynchronous
data. The Examiner points us to column 2, lines 66 through
68, and column 3, lines 36 through 42. The Examiner argues
that this teaching suggests that the system could be operated
asynchronously.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie
case. It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by implications contained in such
teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995,
217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when
determining obviousness, the claimed invention should be
considered as a whole; there is no legally recognizable
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007