Appeal No. 2003-1622
Application No. 09/146,529
shown where Holmann teaches a first register for holding a first description indicating a
timing of starting a determination of said condition and use of the timing to start the
determination of the condition.
Appellants argue that the claims call for a delay in the determining a condition
and that the execution of the instruction is not performed until the condition is satisfied
after the delay period before the condition is evaluated. (See brief at page 20.) The
examiner includes some random program segment which is not disclosed in Holmann
as part of the rejection. (See answer at pages 11 and 12.) We do not find this
extraneous material useful in the evaluation of the specific disclosure of Holmann.
Here, we find that the examiner is speculating and extrapolating from beyond the
disclosure of Holmann which is inappropriate in a rejection under 35 USC § 102.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection under 35 USC § 102 since the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of anticipation of independent claim 14 and its
dependent claims. The examiner relies upon the application of the prior art applied
against claim 14 with respect to independent claims 1 and 21. Therefore, we cannot
sustain the rejection under 35 USC § 102 since the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of anticipation of independent claims 1, 21 and their dependent
claims.
35 USC § 103
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007