Appeal No. 1996-3669
Application No. 08/274,132
using her or his own knowledge of the art, would have been put
in possession of the claimed subject matter. For example, in
attempting to address the claim language relating to address
and data pin-outs, the Examiner points to the Figure 57
illustration and accompanying description at column 12 of
Balmer. From this description, the Examiner asserts the
“belief” that the address and data pin-outs are the same
regardless of the number of processors or memories. We note
that the Examiner has provided no basis on the record that
would support such a conclusion. In any case, regardless of
the merits of such an interpretation of the teachings of
Balmer, no convincing reasoning has been supplied by the
Examiner as to how or why the skilled artisan would apply such
teachings to Seefeldt. As correctly pointed out by
Appellants, Balmer’s system is a fixed design with no
suggestion of modular expansion appearing in the disclosure.
In addition, the Examiner does not explain why the
skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Seefeldt
to provide processor/memory architecture since Seefeldt is
directed to a gate array structure which does not require
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007