Appeal No. 2003-0902
Application No. 09/332,413
are persuasive and we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 3, 9, 12, 18, and 19
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claim
3. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to independent claim 3, it is analogous to
claim 5 except that the interruptible instruction is at the front
of the instruction block (claim 3, line 5). The Examiner's
rejection is on the same basis as that of claim 3, with the
Blandy reference added to show that front placement of
interruptible instructions is known. Appellants' arguments and
the Examiner's rejection correspond to those of claim 5 above.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 3 shares the same deficiency
noted above with respect to the rejection of claim 5. No
motivation has been provided for placing the interruptible
instruction at either the front or end of the instruction block.
Therefore, Appellants' arguments are persuasive and we will not
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007