Appeal No. 96-0635
Application 08/132,410
664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS
Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 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).
The examiner has focused his attention on the function
performed by the claimed invention rather than on the specific
recitations of claim 9. Day simply confirms that the concept
of
replacing erroneous microinstructions with correct
instructions was practiced in this art. Claim 9, however,
requires more than this. As the examiner has admitted, Day
does not teach first and second buffers as claimed. The mere
addition to Day, however, of a bifurcated control store as
taught by Johnson does not teach the invention recited in
claim 9. Claim 9 recites that the transient instructions from
the first buffer and the “permanent” instructions of the
second buffer are reloaded into the same respective buffer
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007