Appeal No. 96-4106
Application No. 08/271,238
lock-step operation of the subprocessors in McDonald. Zieve
was cited by the examiner to show two processors “operating in
response to their independent clocks” (Answer, page 6).
Although Zieve is capable of inserting a special function “at
selected intervals to delay the lead processor until the other
catches up” (column 1, lines 58 through 62), this special
function is merely incidental to the simultaneous operation of
the two processors (column 1, lines 55 through 58). The
obviousness rejection of claims 35 and 36 is, therefore,
reversed because Zieve can not cure the shortcomings in the
teachings of McDonald.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 26 through
28, 31 through 33, 35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed
as to claims 26 through 28, and is reversed as to claims 31
through 33, 35 and 36. Accordingly, 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