Appeal No. 1998-2870
Application 08/429,954
inherent in the operation of EPROM 70 that the CPU be enabled
during the storage of program data" (EA8).
Appellants argue that inherency requires that something
necessarily be so and nothing in Biggs suggests that the CPU
enables the programming of the EPROM.
We agree with Appellants that there is no indication that
the CPU in Biggs is involved in storing the program data from
input 72 into EPROM memory 70. It was well known that EPROMs
could be programmed before being installed in a circuit and Biggs
appears to show direct programming of the EPROM without any
involvement by the CPU. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's
finding that the CPU is "inherently" enabled during program data
reception and storage. Although we believe it was well known to
use a CPU to receive and store external programming data in
memory, instead of programming the memory directly, we decline to
take Official Notice of this fact based only on our personal
knowledge. See In re Zurko, No. 96-1258 (Fed. Cir.
August 2, 2001) ("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."). If storing programming data in memory from an external
source using a CPU was well known in the general telephone art,
or in arts dealing with the inventors' problem of storing
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007