Appeal No. 96-1014
Application 08/032,530
(SRBr4) that the language of the claims is always relevant.
Assuming, arguendo, that Kametani provides the same end
result through some undisclosed combination of software and
hardware, this is not probative on the obviousness question
since different structures to produce the same result may be
separately patentable. It is the subject matter of the
claims that must be examined for patentability. See
In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA
1970)("[E]very limitation positively recited in a claim must
be given effect in order to determine what subject matter
that claim defines."). We conclude that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the synchronization flag memory of claims 26 and
30, and the step of storing at each processor an indication
of a synchronized mode or an unsynchronized mode in claim
39. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 26-29,
30-34, and 39-44.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007