Appeal No. 97-2466 Page 15
Application No. 08/461,943
(i not = j)” preceding the bind. P. 765. The bind statement
corresponds to a compiler directive or syntax. When the
teachings of the references are combined, the result is the
insertion of a pseudo operation in an intermediate
representation of a source program at a point of possible
asynchronous activity identified using a compiler directive or
syntax. Therefore, we find that the references would have
suggested the elements of claim 18. Accordingly, we affirm
the rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Next, we consider the obviousness of claims 2,
4-7, and 13-16.
Obviousness of Claims 2, 4-7, and 13-16
We recall that in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
the patent examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness. A prima facie case is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a
person of ordinary skill in the art. If the examiner fails to
establish a prima facie case, an obviousness rejection is
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007