Appeal No. 96-0546
Application No. 07/947,010
rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill
in the art.” In the absence of evidence in the record that
the circuit disclosed by Upp will still operate as intended
with the modification suggested by the examiner, we agree with
appellants’ argument (Brief, pages 4 and 7) that Upp and
Newman neither teach nor would they have suggested to the
skilled artisan clock regenerators at an input. The
additional references to Todd, Traw and Buhrke were cited by
the examiner (Final rejection, paragraphs 19 and 20) for their
teachings concerning nodes. Neither of these references cures
the noted shortcoming in the teachings of Upp and Newman.
Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 14 through 16, 18
and 20 through 22 is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 14 through
16, 18 and 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007