Appeal No. 95-4466
Application 08/135,188
F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appellants argue that Griffin does not teach or fairly suggest the retrieval and
storage of subroutines from an auxiliary memory and the storage of these retrieved
subroutines in the main memory. (See brief at pages 4-5.) Appellants also argue that the
execution program sequencing through the function modules of Griffin does not retrieve
subroutines from an auxiliary memory and store them in main memory as set forth in claim
18. We agree with appellants. The Examiner acknowledges the deficiencies in the
teaching of Griffin in the rejection and in the Examiner’s response to appellants’
arguments. (See answer at pages 2-7.) The Examiner merely asserts that the limitations
set forth in the claims were “notoriously well known.” (See answer at page 7.) We
disagree with the Examiner. The Examiner has not provided any teaching or suggestion in
Griffin or provided any separate line of reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to retrieve subroutines which
correspond to entered common operation designation names from an auxiliary memory
and store them in the main memory at consecutive ascending addresses as set forth in the
language of claim 18.
After a careful review of the record in this case, we are compelled to agree with
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007