Appeal No. 1998-0524
Application No. 08/522,067
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Ando et al. 4,771,379 Sep. 13, 1988
Shipnes, “Graphics Processing with the 88110 RISC
Microprocessor,” IEEE, 1992, pp. 169-174.
Claims 24 through 26 and 28 through 33 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ando in
view of Shipnes.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we will
not sustain the rejection of claims 24 through 26 and 28
through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions found in
the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the artisan
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007