Appeal No. 2004-0909 Page 5
Application No. 09/053,398
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "[t]he Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must
consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the
prior art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582, 32 USPQ2d 1021, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, independent claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
"transferring contents of a plurality of registers associated with at least a functional unit
in the processor . . . , the contents excluding instructions of the processor . . . and
defining a data structure including control word for the at least functional unit. . . ."
Independent claims 8, 15, and 21 recite similar limitations. Considering all the
limitations, the independent claims require transferring the contents of registers
associated with (at least) a functional unit in a processor, wherein the contents define a
control word for the functional unit and exclude instructions for the processor.
2. OBVIOUSNESS DETERMINATION
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007