Appeal No. 2002-2259
Application No. 09/083,959
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The conclusion that the claimed
subject matter is obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown
by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that
would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings
of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Furthermore, the Examiner must produce a factual basis supported
by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be common
knowledge of unquestionable demonstration, consistent with the
holding in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664,
668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
Independent claims 1, 4, 17, 26 and 32 recite comparing the
types of current processors with a compatibility table and
determining the types of the processors that are compatible with
all current processors. While Kinoshita does disclose generation
number managing for checking the compatibility of generation
numbers among existing processors or files, the reference offers
no teaching or suggestion of determining compatible processors
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007