Appeal No. 2002-1578
Application No. 08/814,928
a read operation because of the longer time required to perform a
write operation relative to a read operation.
As noted above, the Examiner has the burden of initially
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. The Examiner cannot
satisfy this burden by simply dismissing differences between the
claimed invention and the teachings of the prior art as being
obvious. The Examiner must present us with an evidentiary record
which supports the finding of obviousness. It does not matter how
strong the Examiner’s convictions are that the claimed invention
would have been obvious, or whether we might have an intuitive
belief that the claimed invention would have been obvious within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Neither circumstance is a
substitute for evidence lacking in the record before us. While
further study and scrutiny of the Examiner’s analysis might
eventually convince us of the correctness of the Examiner’s
position, we do not find this to be necessary. It is quite clear
to us that the very issue which the Examiner has gone to great
pains to establish the obviousness to the skilled artisan, i.e.,
the advantages of suspending a write operation to perform a read
operation because of the longer performance times of a write
operation relative to a read operation, is explicitly recognized
and taught by the Leak reference as discussed supra.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007