Appeal No. 96-1738
Application 08/040,428
would have been obvious to artisans to have implemented the
discrete logic circuits of Korpi in the form of a programmable
array logic, we remain unconvinced as to why the artisan would
have chosen to have done so in light of Korpi alone even with
the examiner's reasoning. In our view, Korpi presents a
rather complex set of logic relationships among the circuit
figures of his patent which requires something more than the
basic brute force reason approach proffered by the examiner to
convince us.
Even if we were to agree with the examiner's position as
to the programmable array logic, we remain unconvinced of the
obviousness of the subject matter of independent claims 1 and
19 on appeal. The examiner has not persuaded us, nor can we
determine on our own, that the features at the end of these
respective claims would have been obvious or are otherwise
taught or suggested by Korpi alone. Specifically, we refer
to the feature at the end of independent claim 1 of inputting
counterpart pairs into a programmable array logic which in
turn would yield two enable signals for each of the defined
counterpart pairs of signals, wherein the further feature is
recited in this claim that the recited logic circuitry
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007