Appeal No. 1997-0923
Application No. 08/400,414
examiner has pointed to nothing nor can we find any disclosure
in Conners that would overcome this deficiency.
In addition, claims 37, 39, and 40 depend from claims 21
and 38, respectively, and thus include the recitation of
conditionally writing to the register. As discussed above,
Conners does not disclose conditionally writing to the
register.
Since Faudemay does not discuss registers at all, Faudemay
cannot cure the defect of Conners. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 37, 39, and 40.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 21 through
25, 27 through 33, 35, 36, 38, 41 through 44, 46 and 47 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed. The decision of the examiner
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007