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 thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007