Ex Parte TREMBLAY et al - Page 4




              Appeal No. 2005-2557                                                                       4                                      
              Application No. 09/204,585                                                                                                        
              knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in the art.  Uniroyal, Inc. v.                                         
              Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert.                                                   
              denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776                                          
              F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017                                                    
              (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ                                                   
              929, 933 (Fed. 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).  If that burden                                              
              is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with                                             
              argument and/or evidence.  Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the                                                     
              evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments.  See Id.; In re                                             
              Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745                                              
              F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d                                                 
              1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).  Only those arguments actually made                                                    
              by appellants have been considered in this decision.  Arguments which appellants could                                            
              have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered and are                                                     
              deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].                                                                        
               We consider first the examiner’s rejection of the claims based on Yung and                                                       
              Luan.  The examiner finds that Yung teaches the invention of independent claim 1                                                  
              except that Yung does not teach that the number of global registers and the number of                                             
              local registers within a segment are programmably configurable as claimed.  The                                                   

















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007