Appeal No. 1998-0429
Application No. 08/537,187
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 not overcome the convincing prima facie case of obviousness by
showing insufficient evidence of obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with
secondary evidence. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claim 6.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon the teachings and
suggestions of INTEL for teaching the basic structure of auxiliary processors and their
associated circuitry. The examiner also relies upon the teaching of INTEL to show the
auxiliary processor to assist the CPU in performing many of the input and output functions
to free up the CPU. The examiner relies upon the teachings of Andersen and Menendez to
teach the use of a FIFO in storing and processing instructions and functions. (See answer
at pages 3-4.) We agree with the examiner.
Appellants state that all claims stand of fall together (brief at page 4) and argue the
differences between INTEL and “Applicants’ invention.” (See brief at pages 5-7.)
Appellants' arguments essentially focus upon the use of the FIFO and the automatic
processing of successive command blocks immediately after completion of the present
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007