Appeal No. 1997-0416
Application No. 08/125,406
Furthermore, we find that the examiner has not provided a line of reasoning thereto, and
the examiner has not cited any portion of Herrig besides Figure 1, items 112 and 120-127.
The examiner maintains that the restart of the clock is “in response to [an] assertion of a
signal indicating bus clock is again needed.” (See answer at page 4.) The examiner has
not addressed that the bus master is requesting the restart of the clock rather than an
actuation of a switch.
With respect to the examiner's response to the appellants' arguments, the examiner
generally maintains that appellants are arguing the references individually and does not
address the merits of these arguments. (See answer at page 9-11.) The examiner strings
numerous case citations together, but does not apply these recited citations to the
combination of teachings. Therefore, the examiner's responses are not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the examiner has used impermissible hindsight to reconstruct
the claimed invention. (See brief at pages 8-9.) We agree with appellants. The examiner
has attempted to find the parts of the claimed invention and reconstruct the claimed
invention, and we find the examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning to
modify the prior art teaching to meet the claimed invention. Therefore, we cannot sustain
the rejection of claim 14. Similarly, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims
1 and 18 which contain similar limitations.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007