Appeal No. 96-3124
Application 08/265,585
cautious message to the plurality of processor
units indicating receipt of a power-fail
message.
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Whiteside et al. (Whiteside) 4,356,546 Oct.
26, 1982
Claims 3 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Whiteside.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 3 through 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007