Appeal No. 97-4062 Page 7
Application No. 08/590,049
instruction to test the CPU.” (Examiner’s Answer at 6-7.)
Rather than providing a line of reasoning to explain why
intercepting Warchol’s reset instruction and providing an
alternative instruction to the CPU would have been desirable,
he merely concludes, “breaking down the process into two
steps, intercepting and substituting, is just one obvious way
of implementing the automatic test instructions taught by
Warchol.“ (Id. at 7). This conclusion impermissibly relies
on the appellant’s teachings or suggestions to modify the
reference. For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claims 1-33.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007