Appeal No. 2006-1783
Application No. 09/183,694
Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). Rejections based on § 102 must rest on a factual
basis wherein the burden of proof is placed “on the Patent Office
which requires it to produce the factual basis for its rejection
of an application under sections 102 and 103." In re Piasecki,
745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(citing In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016, 154 USPQ 173, 177
(CCPA 1967)). The examiner may not, because of doubt that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in
the factual basis for the rejection. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
at 1017, 154 USPQ at 178 (CCPA 1967).
Before addressing the Examiner’s position and Appellants’
rebuttal, it is an essential prerequisite that the claimed
subject matter be fully understood. The claim construction
analysis begins with the words of the claim. See Vitronics Corp.
v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582, 39 USPQ2d, 1573, 1576
(Fed. Cir. 1996). As we direct our attention to Appellants’
claim 21 in order to derive an understanding of the scope and
content thereof, we note that the claim requires that the data
controller minimize the interrupts to the processor. The claim
also requires that the data controller does so by re-ordering the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007