Appeal No. 1999-0261
Application No. 08/703,496
established proper motivation for the proposed combination of
references so as to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. After careful review of the applied prior art
references in light of the arguments of record, we are in
agreement with Appellants’ position as stated in the Brief.
As argued by Appellants (Brief,
page 5), the Examiner has pointed to no disclosure in Herrig
that would suggest any support for the Examiner’s assertion
that Herrig’s system could be modified to allow communication
by only one device while bus communication is paused. Our
interpretation of the disclosure of Herrig coincides with that
of Appellants, i.e., when bus communication is paused, the
generation of required bus communication clock signals is
stopped, thereby inhibiting all communication over the bus
(Herrig, column 6, lines 1-9). We find no evidence provided
by the Examiner that would support the obviousness to the
skilled artisan of making the modification suggested by the
Examiner. The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in
the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007