Appeal No. 96-1738
Application 08/040,428
receives the inputting of the counterpart pairs and being in
turn responsive to the enablement signals to therefore
transmit or block the signals in the counterpart pair in
response to the enable signals. As appellant argues, we
understand the thrust of Korpi as controlling in some complex
manner bidirectional busy signals through a converter, whereas
no mention essentially has been made as to controlling the
bidirectional reset signals specifically set forth in
independent claim 1 on appeal. The claimed invention requires
that the enable signals be generated for all counterpart
pairs. Because we reverse the rejection of claim 1, we must
also reverse the rejection of all of its dependent claims.
Turning next to the features recited in independent claim
19, we also reverse the rejection of this claim. The
examiner's position weakly relies upon reasoning to reject the
other claims as a basis to reject independent claim 19. This
claim does not recite the specifics of a programmable array
logic unit. On the other hand, this claim specifically
recites three counterpart pair signal groups of reset, select,
and busy configurations. From the examiner's reasoning then,
we can not determine that the feature recited at the end of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007