Appeal No. 96-0862
Application 08/055,971
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
The initial burden is on the examiner to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness when applying a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. 103. It is our view that the examiner has not
done so in the instant case.
In the statement of the rejection and rationale therefor,
at pages 2-4 of the supplemental answer (Paper No. 15), the
examiner indicates various elements disclosed by Keller such
as “a control store...,” “ a plurality of output ports...,” “a
plurality of latches....” and “a multiplexer...” However, the
examiner never clearly indicates the correspondence, if any,
between these elements and the instant claimed elements.
Thus, it is not at all clear how the examiner is specifically
applying the teachings of Keller.
Additionally, the examiner indicates that while Keller
does not teach the storing of microinstructions in the control
store in a sequential order in which the next microaddress is
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007