Appeal No.1996-3237
Application 08/266,431
as a whole or knowledge generally available to one having
ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley
Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 488 U.S.
825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories,
Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933
(Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an
essential part of complying with the burden of presenting a
prima
facie case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The examiner attempts to read the claims on the
Carbine disclosure [answer, pages 3-4]. After this analysis
is complete, the examiner states that the “difference between
the instant claimed invention and that of Carbine lies in the
specific ‘indication of an error when a mis-compare is
detected’”
[id. page 4]. The examiner concludes that the VLSI tester of
Carbine acts as an error indicator in real-time and that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007