Appeal No. 2002-0490 Page 7
Application No. 09/152,751
exception should have occurred on an associated load negates anticipation. Therefore,
we reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 16; of claims 17 and 18, which depend
therefrom; of claim 20; of claims 21 and 22, which depend therefrom; of claim 24; and
of claims 25 and 27, which depend therefrom.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 19, 23, and 26
"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, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, the examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the addition of Rogers or
AAPA cures the aforementioned deficiency of Mowry. Absent a teaching or suggestion
of positioning a check instruction after a dismissible load instruction in a stream of
executable instructions and using the check instruction to determine if an exception
should have occurred on an associated load negates anticipation, we are unpersuaded
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007