Appeal No. 96-0033
Application 08/066,638
but have asserted only a general argument of patentability, which
is unacceptable as an argumentative approach within 37 CFR
§ 1.192.
In a similar manner, the subject matter of independent
claims 8 and 9 is considered to be a broader recitation of the
subject matter directly corresponding to independent claim 1 on
appeal. More specifically, the above-noted “at least R buffer
registers” clause of claim 1 on appeal is only recited in these
claims 8 and 9 as “for receiving data from the first device, R
being an integer number greater than 1.” Similarly, the counting
means clause of independent claim 1 is only recited in inde-
pendent claims 8 and 9 as “generating a predetermined number
of distinct values in response to the strobe signals applied
thereto.” In accordance with the examiner’s reasoning, these
claims are broader than the corresponding recitation in
independent claim 1 on appeal. Therefore, the teachings as
correlated by the examiner to claim 1 obviously would have been
even more applicable to the artisan to claims 8 and 9.
We part company with the examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 6 and 7 on appeal within 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of the
collective teachings of Trost and Meinke. Assuming for the sake
of argument that it would have been proper within this statutory
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007