Appeal No. 1997-3240
Application 08/176,940
unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing court requires
this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132
USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148
USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, our reviewing
court states in Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984) the following:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), focused on the
procedural and evidentiary processes in reaching a
conclusion under section 103. As adapted to ex
parte procedure, Graham is interpreted as continuing
to place the "burden of proof on the Patent Office
which requires it to produce the factual basis for
its rejection of an application under section 102
and 103" [citing In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016,
154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967)].
After a review of the teachings of McEntee, we fail to
find that the “means for entering simultaneously into the code
memory at a plurality of addresses,” as recited in Appellant’s
claim 1, is the same as the copying and updating the pointers
to the objects of McEntee or an “equivalent” thereof. We
disagree with the Examiner that the memory allocation system
of McEntee either inherently or obviously provides
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007