Appeal No. 1999-2375
Application No. 08/892,822
maintained by the examiner. Furthermore, we find that the examiner has not established a
convincing line of reasoning for the combination separate for the teachings of the
references. While each of the references teaches a portion of the claimed invention, we
do not find a motivation to weave them together to achieve the invention as recited in
independent claims 6, 16 and 17. While we do find motivation to provide for the
shadowing of the BIOS in Bealkowski with the compression of the BIOS in Kikinis, we do
not find any motivation to look to the teachings of Chambers to decompress a portion of
the compressed BIOS. From our understanding of Chambers, Chambers is concerned
with direct reads from compressed data files and these data files are requested in
response to an application program which issues data file excess requests. (See
Chambers at columns 3-4.) We find that these data access requests do not suggest the
decompression of a portion of a compressed BIOS and the examiner has not addressed
the difference between a BIOS and an application program. Therefore, we agree with
appellants and find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to independent claims 6, 16 and 17.
With respect to dependent claim 15, appellants argue the difference in reasons for
compressing and decompressing the BIOS and rely on the patentability of dependent
claim 11. (See brief at page 7.) Since we sustained the rejection of dependent claim 11
with independent claim 1, and since no specific arguments were made for patentability of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007