Appeal No. 1997-3132
Application 08/268,370
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We fail to find that Shiono or Gruetzner provides
any reason or suggestion of the desirability of the
modification proposed by the Examiner. Therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 through 5 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shiono in
view of Gruetzner.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Shiono in view of Gruetzner and
Farwell. We note that the Examiner relies on the above same
reasoning for modifying Shiono to provide an incompatible scan
architecture for the second circuit. We fail to find that
Farwell supplies the missing teaching or suggestion to those
skilled in the art to make the modification as proposed by the
Examiner. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 2 for the same reasons as above.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 2 through 5 and 8 is reversed.
REVERSED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007