Appeal 2007-1352
Application 10/406,127
to a volatile memory, such as a Random Access Memory (RAM).
(Col. 15, ll. 52-60.)
5. Ohmura teaches that cache memory 44 may include both non-volatile
memory 46 and volatile memory 48. (Col. 11, l. 62 to col. 12, l. 19;
Figs. 4, 5.)
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal, all timely filed evidence and properly presented arguments
are considered by the Board. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In the examination of a patent application, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of showing a prima facie case of unpatentability. Id. at 1472,
223 USPQ at 788. When that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to rebut. Id.; see also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 74
USPQ2d 1951, 1954-55 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding rebuttal evidence
unpersuasive). If the applicant produces rebuttal evidence of adequate
weight, the prima facie case of unpatentability is dissipated. In re Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thereafter, patentability is determined
in view of the entire record. Id. However, on appeal to the Board it is an
appellant's burden to establish that the Examiner did not sustain the
necessary burden and to show that the Examiner erred -- on appeal we will
not start with a presumption that the Examiner is wrong.
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013