Appeal No. 2002-1938 Page 5
Application No. 09/292,959
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, Veijola discloses "a wireless user terminal or mobile station 10, such as
but not limited to a cellular radiotelephone or a personal communicator. . . ." Col. 4,
ll. 50-53. The mobile station includes a Digital Signal Processor (DSP) 23, col. 5, ll. 9-
10; "Value Added Service (VAS) applications 70 and handportable [sic] user interface
applications 72," col. 15, ll. 24-26; and a "router layer 40. . . ." Col. 5, l. 67.
Although the reference's DSP, applications, and router layer are components of the
same mobile station 10, the examiner fails to show that the components are integrated
within the same IC. To the contrary, the router layer resides on a circuit separate from
the DSP circuit. Specifically, "[t]he router 40 . . . may reside in the [Master Control Unit]
MCU 21," col. 6, ll. 5-6, which is "typically a microprocessor device, col. 5, ll. 8-9,
separate from the DSP 23. Id. at ll. 7-11.
Furthermore, the examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the addition of
Kristol cures the aforementioned deficiency of Veijola. Absent a teaching or suggestion
of a processor, at least two application modules, and a router all integrated within the
same IC, the examiner fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore,
we reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 2.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007