Appeal No. 96-3236
Application 08/295,493
drawback to such systems is the “extensive communications overhead required” [pages 2-3 of the
specification]. It appears to us that appellants are the ones who have recognized the drawbacks to the
various prior art techniques and the manner of improving such techniques. Thus, it appears that the
examiner uses the rationale (e.g., catastrophic consequences if the clock in a single clock system fails)
referred to by appellants as a reason for operating processors asynchronously and concludes that it
would have been obvious to do what appellants have done for the reasons appellants did it. 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 requires more. There must be some suggestion in the prior art, or some convincing rationale as
to the level of artisans which would have led them, to do what appellants have done.
Additionally, without a specific direction to do so, there would appear to be no reason to
change a synchronous operation to an asynchronous one. The examiner has not shown any suggestion
in the prior art for modifying Danielsen’s system to make it asynchronous in the face of Danielsen’s
explicit disclosure of a synchronous system. Nor has the examiner shown us, by convincing evidence,
that the skilled artisan would have been led, for any reason other than that given by appellants, to have
provided for asynchronous operations of the processors in Danielsen.
Westcott is of no help in providing for the deficiency of Danielsen, Westcott being applied by
the examiner merely as a teaching of a selection means to select a particular instruction from a group of
instructions.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007