Appeal No. 1995-3903 Page 20
Application No. 08/062,737
generate one to initiate Main Task. For the foregoing
reasons, the examiner failed to show that Moon would have
suggested the generation of an interrupt for each task of
claim 45 and its dependent claims 46 and 47. Therefore, we
find that the examiner’s rejection does not amount to a prima
facie case of obviousness.
Because the examiner has not established a prima facie
case, the rejection of claims 38-42 and 45-47 over Moon is
improper. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007