Appeal No. 96-0033
Application 08/066,638
provision for the artisan to have combined the teachings of these
two references, the subject matter of these two dependent claims
6 and 7 would not have been met. The respective overrun
detection means and validation means in these claims 6 and 7
require specific relationships between the latches in these
claims to other circuit elements, none of which has been detailed
by the examiner as being correlated to any of the collective
teachings and suggestions between the two references. As such,
the examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obvious-ness of the specific subject matter set forth in these
two claims even though the examiner appears to have set forth a
valid basis between the two references only for the concept of
both claims, that is, the overrun detection concept, as well as
the validation concept set forth in respective claims 6 and 7.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner is
affirmed as to the decision to reject claims 1 to 5, 8 and 9
within 35 U.S.C. § 103, but is reversed as to the examiner’s
decision to reject dependent claims 6 and 7 under this statutory
provision. Therefore, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-
in-part.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007