Appeal 2007-1307
Application 10/454,274
abstract), in which he teaches wherein the instructions being assembly
language instructions (See column 231, lines 46-51); a second instruction for
performing a logical AND instruction on the two storage units of at least 128
bits (See column 76, lines 51-59)” (Answer 8).
9. Abrams was cited by the Examiner for a teaching of “bitmap comparison
apparatus and method sing [sic, using] an outline mask and differently
weighted bits (See abstract), in which he teaches wherein a join operation on
two bitmap indexes being performed by comparing two bitmap indexes and
computing their intersection using a logical AND instruction (See abstract;
column 4, lines 43-44; column 9, lines 19-29; column 10, lines 31-32)”
(Answer 9).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must
possess a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2006).
“One cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among
isolated disclosures in the prior art to deprecate the claimed invention.” In
re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In an obviousness rejection, it is impermissible “to pick and choose
from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position,
to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such
reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wesslau,
353 F.2d 238, 241, 147 USPQ 391, 393 (CCPA 1965).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013