Appeal No. 2004-1596
Application No. 09/544,858
would have selected and modified the prior art teachings for
combination in the manner claimed. In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365,
1369-70, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claim 1, as well as claims 9, 23 and 27, which recite
similar features. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 1-16, 23-25, 27-34 and 37-39 over AAPA
and Kowalski.
With respect to the rejection of the remaining claims, the
Examiner further relies on Hewitt for disclosing multimedia
devices in a computer system in connection with a bus interface
logic including at least one storage location (answer, page 10).
However, there is no additional disclosure in Hewitt that
overcomes the deficiencies of the combination of AAPA and
Kowalski as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Therefore,
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 18, 19, 35 and 36 cannot
be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007