Appeal No. 2006-1617
Application No. 09/812,202
suggests either (1) “determining for each cell …”, “determining for each relative position
…”, and “replacing within the stored cell …”; or (2) “performing a test to detect …”,
“performing a test on the relative position …”, and “updating the content …” . We agree.
The Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case. Without a
specific explanation of Examiner’s reasoning with respect to how each claim feature is
taught or suggested by Anderson, we find that a prima facie case has not been
established. The Examiner first recites the contents of Anderson and then recites
Appellants’ claim with a statement that they are equivalent. Such a rejection is little
more than an invitation for this Board (and Appellants) to construct the prima facie case
for the Examiner. We decline the invitation.
As to Appellants’ other arguments that Anderson fails to teach or suggest either a
working buffer or clearing the content of each cell. We disagree. However, this point is
moot in view of the discussion above.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007