Appeal No. 2002-2259
Application No. 09/083,959
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that Alpert teaches using a computer software for identifying the
current processors where Kinoshita discloses the use of
compatibility tables for determining whether an additional
processor is compatible with the current processors (answer, page
9). The Examiner further argues that the differences between the
claims and updating and maintaining compatibility tables of
Kinoshita “do not contradict the teachings that one of ordinary
skill in the art would take from the reference: that by
maintaining a compatibility table on a computer system, the
process of adding or replacing a processor can be significantly
automated” (answer, page 10). The Examiner points out that the
reason to combine the references is taken from the nature of the
problem of determining the type of processor in a system and
handling compatibility issues (answer, page 11). Additionally,
the Examiner cites the teachings of the prior art related to
microprocessor compatibility and the knowledge of the skilled
artisan of the need for adding a compatible CPU to a system, as
the reasons for combining the prior art teachings (id.).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007