Appeal No. 1998-1801
Application No. 08/285,411
Reply Brief (Paper No. 22) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand
rejected.
OPINION
The examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability. If that burden is met, the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shifts to the applicant. After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant
in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by a preponderance of
evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The Final Rejection refers to the rejection mailed November 13, 1996 (Paper No.
16) for the rationale underlying the standing section 103 rejection over Moussouris. The
examiner points to column 1, lines 60 to column 2, line 34 as the pertinent portion of
Moussouris with respect to the subject matter of instant claim 18. (See Paper No. 16,
page 3.)
Appellants argue, as set forth principally on page 10 of the Brief, that the reference
fails to disclose or suggest “placing the address tag array inside a microprocessor chip
while placing the data array outside the microprocessor chip,” as reflected in the language
of claim 18. Appellants also argue in the Brief and Reply Brief that the “sequential manner”
in accessing first the address tag array for hit/miss determination and for generation of a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007