Appeal No. 96-1492
Application 07/666,162
of the distribution order being a design choice is not
supported by the record.
The arguments by appellants and the examiner as to
whether Liu and Natarajan are synchronous or asynchronous
systems also fail to properly address the requirements for a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Neither the examiner nor
appellants address the question of whether the synchronous
operation of the plurality of processors recited in claim 1
would have been obvious over the teachings of Liu and/or
Natarajan. There are only two modes of operation, synchronous
and asynchronous. Simply establishing that a reference is one
or the other does not address the obviousness of the
recitation of synchronous operation. Notwithstanding the
failure of the examiner and appellants to properly consider
issues of obviousness, the examiner’s assertions regarding the
synchronous operation of Liu and Natarajan are unsupported by
the references.
For all the reasons just discussed, the examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 1 is not supported by the
applied prior art. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007