Appeal No. 1996-3669
Application No. 08/274,132
memory addressability capability. The mere fact that the
prior art may be modified
in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 1992). None
of the problems sought to be overcome by Balmer would be
expected to exist in Seefeldt. We are left to speculate why the
skilled arti- san would modify the existing circuitry of
Seefeldt to provide for the processors, memories, and cross-bar
connections suggested by Balmer. The only reason we can discern
is improper hindsight re- construction of Appellants’ claimed
invention. Accordingly, since the Examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of independent claims 13 and 24, and claims 14-16, 18-23, and
26-29 dependent thereon, cannot be
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007