Appeal No. 1998-0706
Application 08/166,279
These reasons are unconvincing because they lack any basis in
Allen, the only reference cited in support of the rejection,
which discloses communicating to the interprocessor bus only
those messages which are intended for processors connected to
that interprocessor bus. Nor can we treat the examiner's
reasoning as stemming from the basic knowledge or common sense
of the artisan. Cf. In re Zurko, ___ F.3d ___, ___ USPQ2d ___
(Fed. Cir. August 2, 2001), slip op. at 9-10:
[T]he deficiencies of the cited references cannot be
remedied by the Board’s general conclusions about
what is "basic knowledge" or "common sense" to one
of ordinary skill in the art. As described above,
the Board contended that even if the cited UNIX and
FILER2 references did not disclose a trusted path,
"it is basic knowledge that communication in trusted
environments is performed over trusted paths" and,
moreover, verifying the trusted command in UNIX over
a trusted path is "nothing more than good common
sense." . . . We cannot accept these findings by
the Board. This assessment of basic knowledge and
common sense was not based on any evidence in the
record and, therefore, lacks substantial evidence
[sic] support. As an administrative tribunal, the
Board clearly has expertise in the subject matter
over which it exercises jurisdiction. This
expertise may provide sufficient support for
conclusions as to peripheral issues. With respect
to core factual findings in a determination of
patentability, however, the Board cannot simply
reach conclusions based on its own understanding or
experience -- or on its assessment of what would be
basic knowledge or common sense. Rather, the Board
must point to some concrete evidence in the record
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007