Appeal No. 2006-3076 Page 6
Application No. 10/004,948
devices, and a set of required flows . . . interconnect fabric must be built to
simultaneously support these flow requirements . . . the fabric . . . can be constructed.”
We find these teachings to clearly show that the CAD-based system would have
inherently had an interactive display which would have drawn the fabric as the processes
completed portions of the design and during each recursion/iteration. To present the
results to the designer, the CAD system would have had to have generated results and
provided them to a drawing program. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive,
and we will sustain the rejection under anticipation of independent claim 1 and its
dependent claims.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Appellants argue that O’Sullivan does not
teach drawing with a drawing program (Brief, p. 15). As discussed above, with respect to
independent claim 1, we find that O’Sullivan teaches a drawing program in the CAD
system. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the
rejections under anticipation and dependent claims 12, 19, and 26 which Appellants
elected to group therewith.
35 U.S.C. § 103
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532,
28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established by presenting evidence that the reference teachings would appear to be
sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references before him to
make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the conclusion that the claimed
subject matter is prima facie obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some
objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art that would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the
references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007