Ex parte HARDEE - Page 10




          Appeal No. 1998-1815                                      Page 10           
          Application No. 08/684,328                                                  


          9, and 14-50 of the '183 Application.  We next address the                  
          rejection for obviousness.                                                  


                                     Obviousness                                      
               We note the following principles from In re Rijckaert,                 
          9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).                   
               In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. section 103, the                   
               examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a                      
               prima facie case of obviousness.  In re Oetiker,                       
               977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.                   
               1992)....  "A prima facie case of obviousness is                       
               established when the teachings from the prior art                      
               itself would appear to have suggested the claimed                      
               subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the                    
               art."  In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d                        
               1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,                   
               531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).                   
               If the examiner fails to establish a prima facie                       
               case, the rejection is improper and will be                            
               overturned.  In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5                        
               USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).                                    
          With these principles in mind, we address the examiner's                    
          rejection and the appellants' argument.                                     


               The examiner's rejection follows in pertinent part.                    
          "Young shows all the limitations of the claimed method of                   
          reading from memory cells in figs. l-4, utilizing a sense                   
          amplifier latch 21a-24b and a local column read amplifier 28,               







Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007