Appeal No. 1999-2252
Application 08/780,790
OPINION
A. Rejection of claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13, 14 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Appellants'
admitted prior art in view of Aichelmann.
We will not sustain the rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-
11, 13, 14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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).
Appellants argue that the cited references do not3
disclose, suggest, or render obvious (i) an application
directing the data in a memory object associated with a fast
buffer be transferred to a sink device without copying any
portion of the data to the main memory unless the application
3Brief, page 6.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007