Appeal No. 2006-3138
Application No. 09/683,351
Johnson, Mike; (Johnson) “Superscalar Microprocessor Design,” Prentice-Hall, Inc., pp.
133-134 (1991).
Hennessy, John L. and Patterson, David A. (Hennessy), “Computer Organization and
Design, The Hardware/Software Interface,” Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., pp. 118-
119, 175, 185, 384, B-9 and the back inside cover (1998).
REJECTIONS
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's
answer (mailed Feb. 24, 2006) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
Appellants’ brief (filed Nov. 16, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
Second Paragraph. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mahurin in view of Isaman, Johnson, and Hennessy.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
Appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by Appellants and the Examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow.
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007