Appeal No. 2002-0374 Page 5
Application No. 08/599,227
Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988);
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d
281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc.
v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an essential part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden
then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with
argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the
basis of the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We consider first the rejection of claim 1 based on the
teachings of Supnik in view of Lucente or Rastegar, each taken
separately. The examiner's position (answer, pages 5 and 6) is
that "Supnik does not particularly teach a redundant unmapped cache
line in the cache, and means for addressing said redundant unmapped
cache lines in which said redundant unmapped cache line is used as
a temporary cache location without displacing or overwriting any of
said plurality of cache lines." To overcome the deficiencies of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007