Appeal No. 95-4501
Application No. 07/827,549
limitations...are either taught or made obvious by the cited
portions of the Daniels text.”
Especially in light of appellants’ contention that
Daniels fails to teach or suggest the claimed feature of
“starting and stopping operations...,” the examiner had the
burden to specifically point out exactly where, in Daniels,
these limitations were taught or suggested. Failure to do so
constitutes a failure to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation and/or obviousness.
Although the examiner states that the skilled artisan,
having Daniels before him/her “would clearly see the ability
to isolate and test the circuits independently,” this does not
identify what portion of Daniels teaches or suggests the
claimed “starting and stopping.” Although the examiner
contends that the timing circuit of Daniels is “a clear
teaching...of something capable of starting and stopping
operations,” this, too, does not identify a teaching or
suggestion of the claimed “starting and stopping...” The
examiner does not identify what this “something” capable of
being started and stopped, comprises. Further, the examiner’s
identification of a “CPU which can execute instructions” in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007