Appeal No. 1997-4120 Page 12
Application No. 08/347,341
The examiner has not identified anything in Kametani,
Papadopoulos, or the prior art as a whole that would have
suggested storing the data transmitted on Kametani’s signal
lines 8 in a common storage area. His aformentioned comment
that the claim language does not indicate that the data set or
common storage area is used to synchronize the processors
evidences a failure to consider all the limitations of the two
"wherein" clauses of claim 4 and the relationship
therebetween. The examiner erred by focusing only on part of
the first "wherein" clause.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner failed to show
that Kametani and Papadopoulos teach or would have suggested
the "wherein" clauses of claim 4 and its dependent claims 5
and 6. Therefore, we find that the examiner’s rejection does
not amount to a prima facie case of obviousness. Because the
examiner has not established a prima facie case, the rejection
of claims 4-6 over Kametani in view of Papadopoulos is
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007