Appeal No. 96-3274
Application 08/173,408
Examiner concludes (FR3-4):
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of invention to provide such
arrangement in Peterson's [sic] system because it would
have allowed the network interface module to operate
asynchronously with respect to the micro-engine, thereby
eliminating the use of [a] synchronous clock which
otherwise might have been needed during the synchronous
operation of the network interface module and the
micro-engine.
We find no factual support for the Examiner's reasoning. The
Examiner seems to say that it would have been obvious to
provide asynchronous timing so that the system can operate
asynchronously. This does not address the question of why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use
asynchronous timing in the closely coupled system of Petersen
where the host interface logic 102 and the network interface
logic 104 are part of the same network interface processor 14.
The Examiner has made up a reason to account for the
difference and has not attempted to back up the conclusion by
pointing to support in Petersen or in the knowledge of those
of ordinary skill in the art. "The mere fact that the prior
art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification."
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007