Appeal No. 97-1656 Page 17
Application No. 08/314,26
limitation. The absence of the limitation from the reference
negates anticipation.
Furthermore, we find that the teachings from the prior
art itself would not appear to have suggested the limitation
to a person of ordinary skill in the art. As admitted by the
examiner, Takahashi fails to expressly teach interrupts.
(Examiner’s Answer at 5.) Because the reference omits a
description of any interrupts, it would not have suggested
interrupts that are controlled based on priorities of display
tasks. We also note that Takahashi was aware of
prioritization. As aforementioned, the reference teaches the
use of priorities to control masking. In view of this
teaching, if Takahashi intended to use priorities to control
interrupts, he would have mentioned the use.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner failed to show a
teaching or suggestion of controlling interrupts in accordance
with the priorities of the display tasks. Therefore, we find
the examiner’s rejection does not amount to a prima facie case
of obviousness. Because the examiner has not established a
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007