Appeal No. 2004-0500
Application No. 09/488,783
system of Gray with burst access operation as taught by Ramamurthy
to “increase speed/efficiency of bus utilization.”
After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis, it is our view that
such analysis carefully points out the teachings of the Gray and
Ramamurthy references, reasonably indicates the perceived
differences between this applied prior art and the claimed
invention, and provides reasons as to how and why the prior art
teachings would have been modified and/or combined to arrive at the
claimed invention. In our opinion, the Examiner's analysis is
sufficiently reasonable that we find that the Examiner has at least
satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. The burden is, therefore, upon Appellant to come
forward with evidence and/or arguments which persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Only those arguments
actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
Appellant’s arguments in response to the obviousness rejection
of independent method claim 1 assert that a prima facie case of
obviousness has not been established since all of the claimed
limitations are not taught or suggested by the Gray and Ramamurthy
references. After careful review of the applied prior art
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007