Appeal No. 1997-3425 Page 9
Application No. 08/087,824
“processor” refers to processor 22; the claimed “memory ...
containing a first version of ... selected software,” refers
to programmable memory 26. Furthermore, the claimed
“directory ... listing each alternate version of said selected
software application contained therein and a unique
identification of each data processing system among said
plurality of data processing systems which has utilized each
of said alternate versions of said selected software
application” refers to microcode replacement directory 40
which includes column 56. Next, we address the obviousness of
the claims.
Obviousness of the Claims
We begin by noting the following principles from In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Only if that burden is met, does the burden
of coming forward with evidence or argument shift
to the applicant. Id. "A prima facie case of
obviousness is established when the teachings from
the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007