Appeal No. 2003-0031
Application No. 09/240,176
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claims 1, 5, and 8, Appellant’s
arguments in response to the obviousness rejection assert a
failure by the Examiner to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness since all of the claimed limitations are not taught
or suggested by the applied prior art reference. After reviewing
the applied Osborne reference in light of the arguments of
record, we are in general agreement with Appellant’s position as
stated in the Briefs.
Our interpretation of the disclosure of Osborne coincides
with that of Appellant (Brief, pages 4-6; Reply Brief, pages 2-
6), i.e., we find no disclosure or suggestion of configuring the
memory controller so that “at least one of the channels is
arranged to retrieve data from only a respective buffer,” a
feature present in each of the independent claims 1, 5, and 8.
In our view, the Examiner has unreasonably interpreted the
language of claims 1, 5, and 8 as merely requiring dedicated
receive/transmit channels. (Answer, page 4). We can find no
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007