Appeal No. 1999-2295
Application No. 08/418,797
Appellant, when Chao chooses to introduce plural processors into
the disclosed memory management system, the separate head and
pointer memories described in Chao’s previous embodiments are
abandoned and a priority sequencer arrangement is used instead.
In conclusion, we are left to speculate why one of ordinary
skill would have found it obvious to modify the applied prior art
to make the combination suggested by the Examiner. The only
reason we can discern is improper hindsight reconstruction of
Appellants’ claimed invention. In order for us to sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we would need to
resort to speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales to
supply deficiencies in the factual basis of the rejection before
us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA
1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), rehearing denied, 390
U.S. 1000 (1968). Since we are of the view that the prior art
applied by the Examiner does not support the rejection, we do not
sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 3, 6,
14, and 19, nor of claims 2, 4, 5, 9-13, 17, 18, and 20-22
dependent thereon.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007