Appeal No. 2002-0792
Application 08/801,646
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). With
these principles in mind, we commence review of the pertinent
evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
Appellants argue that for claims 1, 19 and 23, the Examiner
has failed to show that Polychronopoulos teaches a shared arena
within the memory, wherein the shared arena includes a register
save area for each of the plurality of threads. Appellants also
argue that neither Anderson nor Polychronopoulos teaches a shared
arena including a register save area for a plurality of threads
or reading register context associated with a selected thread of
plurality of register save areas as recited in Appellants’ claims
1, 19 and 23. See page 8 of Appellants’
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007