Appeal No. 1999-0041
Application 08/475,669
that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-5, 18, and 19.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We begin by noting 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. § 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)).
With these principles in mind, we consider the examiner's
rejection and the appellants' arguments regarding the
following claims:
• claims 2-5 and 18
• claim 19.
I. Claims 2-5 and 18
The examiner asserts, “[t]he ‘processor being used to
execute big endian tasks and little endian tasks’ is taught at
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007