Appeal No. 95-3912
Application 08/087,247
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1 to 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
At the outset, we are not convinced that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed
invention since, initially, we find that it would not have
been obvious for the artisan to have combined from a computer
architecture point of view the systems of Fisk and Federico.
Various portions of Fisk, for example, indicate various
tradeoffs known in the art between a hardware-oriented,
control logic based system versus a programmable controller-
type approach. Note col. 1 generally of Fisk; col. 11, lines
31 through 54; and col. 18, lines 22 through 38. While Fisk
uses a single processor, Federico takes an intermediate
architectural design approach by utilizing a master processor
to control various subsidiary or discrete processors, which in
rejection, apparently in view of the filing of an amendment
after final which has been entered by the examiner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007