Appeal No. 2006-1550
Application No. 10/044,401
With the above discussion in mind, we find that Yokoyama teaches formatting a
bit length of data from an input port to be transmitted to an output port having less width
than the input port. One of ordinary skill in the art would have duly recognized that
Yokoyama’s teaching of rearranging a 256 bit input bandwidth by dividing it into two
128 bit bandwidths to thereby allow the data (of the wider input port) to be
communicated to the (narrower) 128 bit output port is equivalent to the bit length of data
formatting, as set forth in representative claim 1. Consequently, we find no error in the
Examiner’s stated position, which concludes that Yokoyama teaches formatting a bit
length of data from an input port to be transmitted to an output port having less width
than the input port. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-
8 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 16 and 17 as Being
Unpatentable over the combination of Yokoyama and Appellant’s Lach Proper?
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing that
some objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial burden is met does the
burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants. Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ
at 788.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007