Appeal No. 96-3274
Application 08/173,408
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
(Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We agree with
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner's rejection is based
on Appellant's disclosure.
With respect to the point-to-point interface limitation,
the only reasoning we find by the Examiner regarding the
point-to-point interface limitation is the following (FR4;
EA8):
[T]he point-to-point interface would have allowed the
system to efficiently support asynchronous communication
and would have also allowed direct communication between
the various elements of the system.
Again, we find no factual support for the Examiner's
reasoning. The Examiner seems to say that the point-to-point
interface would be advantageous for an asynchronously timed
system, but the Examiner 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. We agree
with Appellant's arguments that the Examiner's rejection
appears to be based on Appellant's disclosure. Nevertheless,
under the Examiner's interpretation of Petersen, where the
host interface logic 102 is the "micro-engine," the "register"
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007