Appeal No. 96-1319
Application 07/934,982
This combination does not suggest that the smart memory should operate in both a
standard mode as well as the smart mode. Nusinov teaches integrated circuits having
improved functionality which can operate as standard circuits (standard mode) with old
devices, but can operate in enhanced modes (smart mode) with newer equipment. The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine the collective teachings of
Nicoud, Witt and Nusinov to arrive at the invention of the independent claims [answer,
pages 3-4].
In our view, the examiner’s analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we find that the
examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. That
is, the examiner’s analysis, if left unrebutted, would be sufficient to support a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The burden is, therefore, upon appellants to come forward with
evidence or arguments which persuasively rebut the examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness. Appellants have presented several substantive arguments in response to
the examiner’s rejection. Therefore, we consider obviousness based upon the totality of
the evidence and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments.
With respect to these independent claims, appellants argue that “none of these
references disclose or suggest the external leads arranged so that the smart video
memory is directly accessible as a standard memory device by the external device while
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007