Appeal No. 96-0950
Application No. 07/727,932
all of the reception processors. The send signal indicates that
all of the reception processors are ready to receive data.
The examiner concedes that Quinquis did not disclose (1) the
reception control means and (2) the AND means. The examiner
contends that it would have been obvious to incorporate a
reception control means from Katzman and AND means from well
known practice in the art. Examiner’s Answer at 4-5. Appellants
argue that there was no suggestion to incorporate the recited
means into Quinquis. Appeal Brief at 12 and 15. We agree with
appellants.
1. Reception Control Means
The examiner states that it would have been obvious to
incorporate Katzman’s reception control means into the Quinquis
system because that would allow Quinquis’ system to select an
amount of data to be received. Examiner’s Answer at 5.
The examiner cites nothing in the prior art to support the
stated rationale. After carefully reviewing the cited art
ourselves, we are unable to find any support or suggestion for
the proposed combination. No need was recognized in the art to
allow each processor in Quinquis’ system to select an amount of
data to be received according to a predetermined reception count
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007