Appeal No. 1999-0041
Application 08/475,669
claims 2-5 and 18 require executing big endian tasks and
little endian tasks on a task-for-task basis directly on a
conventional, bi-endian processor.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the limitations in the prior art of record. “Obviousness may
not be established using hindsight or in view of the teachings
or suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
(Fed. Cir. 1995)(citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13
(Fed. Cir. 1983)). “It is impermissible to use the claimed
invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece
together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed
invention is rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re
Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir.
1991)). “The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in
the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification.” Id. at 1266, 23 USPQ2d at
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007