Appeal 2007-1307
Application 10/454,274
ANALYSIS
It is abundantly clear from the findings of fact that the applied
references neither teach nor would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art “utilizing a microprocessor supporting instructions for simultaneous
processing of at least 128 bits and having storage units of at least 128 bits to
process bitmap index format database structures” as set forth in the claims
on appeal. As indicated supra in findings of fact numbers 2 and 6, the
teachings of Bhashyam mirror the prior art acknowledgment in Appellant’s
disclosure. The 128-bit register status bit vector described in Hathaway is
not relevant to the 128 bits processed during the processing of “bitmap index
format database structures” in the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we agree
with the Appellant’s arguments throughout the Briefs that the claimed
invention is neither taught by nor would have been suggested by the applied
references.
The teachings of the references to Ginter and Abrams fail to cure the
noted shortcoming in the teachings of Bhashyam and Hathaway.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
In the obviousness rejection, the Examiner used impermissible
hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among disclosures in the applied
prior art references. Obviousness has not been established by the Examiner
because the applied references neither teach nor would have suggested to the
skilled artisan the claimed invention.
ORDER
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 12 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013