Appeal No. 2002-1938 Page 4
Application No. 09/292,959
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, independent claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "[a]
single integrated circuit comprising: a processor . . . , at least two modules each for
processing data packets . . . , and a router connected between all of said modules and
the processor for the purpose of controlling flow of data between the processor and the
modules." Giving the independent claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the
limitations require a processor, at least two application modules, and a router all
integrated within the same IC.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the
teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the claimed subject matter
to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007