Ex Parte Poulsen et al - Page 7

                Appeal 2007-1959                                                                             
                Application 10/039,789                                                                       

                benefit of vector operations (col. 6, ll. 42-45).  The data-parallel operations              
                are also taught by Hardwick to be translated into loops over sections of a                   
                vector local to each processor (col. 6, ll. 46-49).                                          

                                          PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                                  
                      To reach a conclusion of obviousness under § 103, the Examiner bears                   
                the burden of producing factual basis supported by teaching in a prior art                   
                reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable                                  
                demonstration.  Our reviewing court requires this evidence in order to                       
                establish a prima facie case.  In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223                   
                USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                                                           
                      Furthermore, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings                   
                of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.                  
                See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir.                        
                2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.                       
                1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA                           
                1981).                                                                                       
                      “Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences                        
                between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such                  
                that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the                   
                invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said                
                subject matter pertains.’”  KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,                  
                1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).                                                           
                      “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods                       
                is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”                


                                                     7                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013