Appeal No. 2005-2273 Page 10
Application No. 10/319,026
high speed cache memory or from its memory 24. The mere fact that temporary
imbalances between the rate that instructions are issued and executed may arise in
Karp is insufficient as a motivation to combine teachings of Karp and Popescu.
The examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Drimak cures
the aforementioned deficiency of Karp, Popescu, and FOLDOC. Absent a teaching or
suggestion of a queue for storing vector instructions, we are unpersuaded of a prima
facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 21
and of claims 22-26, which depend therefrom.
B. BOARD'S REJECTION
Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(2005), we enter a new ground of rejection against
claim 21. "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from
the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a
person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, we reject claim 21 under § 103(a) as obvious over Karp and Murray
Sargent III and Richard Shoemaker ("Sargent"), The IBM Personal Computer™ from the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007