Appeal No. 1999-0168
Application No. 08/540,349
contrary to the Examiner’s assertion that Cutler is silent as
to which of the plural disclosed central processing units is
servicing an interrupt, there is a clear teaching that each
central processing unit responds and acts on interrupt
requests independently of any other central processing units
connected to the system (Cutler, column 5, lines 47-66). We
find no suggestion in Cutler of the suspension of a normal
sequence of operation of a central processor unit while a
coprocessor services exception or interrupt requests as set
forth in the claims on appeal.
In our view, the only support on the record for the
Examiner’s conclusion that the skilled artisan would recognize
the obviousness of utilizing a coprocessor to service
interrupts in another processor while operation in that
processor is suspended can only come from Appellants’ own
disclosure. In order for us to sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we would need to resort to
speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales to supply
deficiencies in the factual basis of the rejection before us.
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA
1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), reh'g denied, 390
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007