Appeal No. 1997-1636 Page 12
Application No. 08/204,996
“transfers between neighboring cells ....,” col. 4, l. 7; and
the transfer of “data from the West cell to the East cell, or
vice versa ....” Id. at ll. 38-41. These transfers would
have suggested that “incoming data can be allocated to
processors of a first layer and transferred sequentially to
processors of subsequent layers for processing” as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we affirm the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 8-10. Next, we
address the obviousness of claim 4.
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, the appellants note, “the Berlin
reference is utilized by the Examiner to show a teaching ‘that
the output data can be directed to the input (Fig. 3).’”
(Appeal Br. at 10.) They do not contest the teaching, but
argue, “The Examiner does not explain how the Berlin reference
would be incorporated into the combination of Lawton and Nogi
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007