Appeal No. 2002-2330
Application No. 09/116,260 Page 11
invention is rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(citing In re Gorman,
933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
Because Hagqvist does not address having a delay value for
an instruction, and in our view, would not benefit from having a
delay value for the instructions, we are not persuaded that the
teachings from the applied prior art would have suggested the
claimed limitations.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 36.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 36, and claims 37 and 39-42
dependent therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007