Appeal No. 96-3850
Application No. 08/253,480
combination, but rather whether or not there is some reason
why one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have
been led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art
references to arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason
must stem from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the
prior art as a whole or knowledge generally available to one
having ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-
Wiley, 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.
1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985); ACS
Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572,
1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Sernaker, 702
F.2d 989, 994, 217 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Since the
examiner has provided no prior art that teaches "a
read/writable memory formed in the same semiconductor chip as
the microprocessor and ordinarily inoperative during the
POST," with "a diagnostic interrupt vector table set in the
read/writable memory," (underlining added for emphasis) the
examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007