Appeal No. 1996-3669
Application No. 08/274,132
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).
With respect to independent claims 13 and 24, the
Examiner proposes to combine the modular architecture
teachings of Seefeldt with the single chip processor, memory,
and crossbar link architecture of Balmer. In the Examiner’s
view (Answer, page 9), the skilled artisan would be motivated
to make the combination to enable the efficient production of
the Balmer architecture on a semiconductor wafer.
Upon careful review of the applied prior art in light of
the arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellants’
stated position that the proposed combination of Seefeldt and
Balmer does not make obvious the claimed subject matter. In
our view, the Examiner has combined the general teachings of a
modularly constructed gate array in Seefeldt and a single chip
processor-memory configuration in Balmer in some vague manner
without specifically describing how the teachings would be
combined. This does not persuade us that one of ordinary
skill in the art having the references before her or him, and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007