Appeal No. 2006-1055
Application No. 09/752,355
modify Muret by Tsuchida’s teaching, in order to arrive at the
instant claimed subject matter. Accordingly, in our view, a
prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Appellants do not deny the teachings alleged by the
examiner. They only argue that Muret’s system is not “intended
for execution in a parallel system and in fact does not lend
itself to parallel execution across plural processing modules”
(brief-page 4).
Yet, in view of the strong teaching by Tsuchida of the
advantage of employing plural parallel processing modules, it
would appear to us that the artisan would have been clearly
motivated to employ plural parallel processing modules in Muret
unless there was some evidence that such modules could not or
would not be used, or would not be applicable, in Muret’s system.
While appellants argue that this is, indeed, the case, appellants
never point to any evidence as to why they conclude that Muret’s
system is not “intended for execution in a parallel system and in
fact does not lend itself to parallel execution across plural
processing modules” (brief-page 4).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007