Appeal No. 2000-0975
Application No. 08/956,402
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Jul. 8, 1999) and the Examiner's Answer
(mailed Nov. 30, 1999) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (filed
Nov. 1, 1999) and the Reply Brief (filed Jan. 11, 2000) for appellants’ position with
respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Appellants’ parroting of the language of instant claim 1 (Brief at 4-5), coupled
with allegations that such combination is not taught or suggested by the references,
does nothing to convince us of error in the rejection set forth by the examiner. We refer
to the examiner’s findings in support of the prima facie case of obviousness for claim 1,
set forth at pages 4 and 5 of the Answer (and the further treatment at pages 5 and 6 in
the section responsive to the Brief’s arguments). We consider the examiner’s findings
and ultimate determination to be well founded.
Appellants appear to argue, at page 2 of the Reply Brief, that the fact that the
Guttag reference taken alone fails to disclose or suggest the instantly claimed invention
tends to show nonobviousness. However, we note that the rejection of claim 1 relies on
Guttag for the limited purpose of teaching a plurality of parallel processors on a single
semiconductor chip. We further note that the inquiry into obviousness is not based on
resolving the question of what would have been obvious to “Guttag et al.,” nor, for that
matter, based on resolving the question of what would have been obvious to the instant
group of inventors.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007