Appeal No. 2006-0621
Application No. 09/938,237
not directed to a document processing system and does not
synchronize the operation of the CPU, typewriter or typewriter
controller. Appellants also argue that the system bus of
Miyawaki does not interconnect the resource and the controller as
claimed. Finally, appellants argue that the examiner has failed
to identify how the claimed invention reads on the applied prior
art [brief, pages 12-21].
The examiner responds that the various modules of the
Miyawaki document processing system “would require
synchronization in order to operate properly.” The examiner also
asserts that appellants admitted that Yamanaka teaches
synchronization between a master clock and slave clocks. The
examiner reiterates that the artisan would have been motivated to
synchronize the document processing system of Miyawaki with the
synchronization taught by Yamanaka “for practical use [i.e.,
making successful copies].” Finally, the examiner asserts that
the applied prior art teaches all the features of the claimed
invention [answer, pages 14-22].
Appellants respond by reiterating their primary position
that the examiner has failed to support his conclusory opinion
that it would have been obvious to modify the processing system
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007