Appeal No. 2002-0590
Application No. 09/213,924
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
final rejection (Paper No. 6, mailed Dec. 20, 2000) and the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 13, mailed Dec. 18, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed May 21, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 14,
filed Feb. 7, 2002) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that Gasbarro teaches a single clock on a single bus and
therefore, the teachings of Gasbarro do not teach or suggest the use of two separate
clocks and two clock buses. (See brief at pages 4-5.) We agree with appellant. The
examiner maintains that Niu teaches the use of two clocks in two different buses. (See
final rejection at page 3.) While we agree with the examiner that Niu teaches the use of
two clocks and two buses for the two different time domains, we do not find “a second
clock bus, carrying a second clock signal, facilitating a transfer of the data from the first
memory device to the memory controller” as recited in the claims. Here, independent
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007