Appeal No. 97-2111
Application 08/158,345
With respect to independent claim 26, the examiner has
basically supported the rejection of this claim in the same
manner as discussed above with respect to independent claim 20
[answer, page 3]. Considering the breadth of claim 26, we are of
the view that the examiner has at least satisfied the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
again consider appellant’s arguments and the relative
persuasiveness of all the evidence.
Appellant argues that neither Burchard nor Gamache
teaches “a Boundary-Scan master comprising an arbitration
interface and control means, coupled to said arbitration
interface, for determining when to request control of said data
and control bus” [brief, page 18]. As we noted above, Burchard
clearly teaches that a conventional Boundary-Scan device includes
a bus master. A bus master is an arbitration interface for
arbitrating access to the bus in question. As we noted in our
discussion of claim 20 above, the bus master of Burchard includes
control means which determines when to request access to the bus.
This operation broadly meets the language of claim 26.
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine
the teachings of Burchard with those of Gamache. Although we
agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007