Appeal No. 1997-1925
Application No. 08/465,315
of obviousness, an applicant who complies with the other statutory requirements is entitled
to a patent. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing
insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with
evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355,
47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, we find that appellants have overcome
the prima facie case of obviousness by showing insufficient evidence by the examiner of
nonobviousness. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor its dependent
claims 2-7.
Appellant argues that “there is nothing in Nickel which discloses the transfer of
signal processing procedures from EPROM 120 to either the RAM 130 or the RAM 140
and the operation of the DSP based on signal procedures transferred from the EPROM to
the RAM.” (See brief at page 5.) We agree with appellant. The examiner goes on at
great length with citations to the Nickel reference to clarify the rejection. (See answer at
pages 3-7.) The examiner relies upon the Nickel reference at column 11 relating to the
transfer of operating parameters, etc. being transferred from the EPROM 500 to the
internal RAM. This is similar to the teaching of Culley regarding the start-up
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007