Appeal No. 1997-2983 Page 9
Application No. 08/482,792
d) retrieving a processor status word, a
program counter value and data to be stored in a
register bank corresponding to said second program
from another location in said RAM via said dedicated
data bus and said dedicated address bus ....
Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14 require using dedicated
buses only for context switching.
The examiner fails to show a suggestion of the
limitations in the prior art. “The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection.
It may not ... resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual
basis.”
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA
1967). "The range of sources available ... does not diminish
the requirement for actual evidence. That is, the showing
must be clear and particular. See, e.g., C.R. Bard Inc. v. M3
Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1352, 48 USPQ2d 1225, 1232 (Fed.
Cir. 1998). Broad conclusory statements regarding the
teaching of multiple references, standing alone, are not
'evidence.'" In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d
1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(exemplary citations omitted).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007