Appeal No. 2002-1672
Application No. 09/412,124
rejection as well. The Mehring and Argade references have been
applied by the Examiner to address the claimed triggering event
timing (claims 3 and 13) and FIFO serialization features (claims
7 and 14), respectively. We find nothing in either of these
references, either individually or collectively, which would
overcome the innate deficiencies of the Nakano and Baird
references discussed supra.
We next consider the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1-7, 12-14, and 17-20, and 22 based on the combination of
Brides in view of Nakano. In making this rejection, the Examiner
(Answer, pages 12 and 13) has relied on that portion of Nakano
which describes acquiring information before a triggering event
to remedy the deficiencies of Bridges which describes the
acquiring of instructions only after a triggering event.
As previously discussed, although we do not agree with
Appellants that Nakano does not describe a triggering event, we
do agree that the Examiner’s analysis and line of reasoning does
not establish a prima facie case of obviousness. We simply find
no evidence from the Examiner to support the asserted conclusion
(Answer, page 19) that merely because individual references
provide a teaching of acquiring instructions, respectively,
before and after a triggering event, that this would lead to the
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007