Appeal No. 1997-1636 Page 16
Application No. 08/204,996
layer for continuation of processing.” Lawton teaches,
“transfers between neighboring cells so that the cells may
perform operations which are functions of the status of their
neighbors ....” Col. 4, ll. 7-9. The reference further
teaches that the transfers involve the delivery of both
“control data” and “information data.” Id. at 4, ll. 35-38.
These teachings would have suggested the transfer of “the
operating state of a processor of one layer ... to a processor
of a subsequent layer for continuation of processing” as
claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we affirm the
examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 7. Next, we address the
obviousness of claims 11 and 12.
Claims 11 and 12
The appellants make two arguments regarding claims 11 and
12. We address these seriatim.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007