Appeal No. 1997-3837
Application No. 08/269,251
examiner’s statement of a line of reasoning is not a logical motivation in view of the prior
art teachings of Schanin. (See brief at page 15.) We agree with appellants.
From our review of the prosecution history, the examiner has merely continued to
repeat the same text as set forth in the first office action and has not responded to
appellants’ arguments. The examiner merely cuts and pastes the same text as the
rejection where he asserts that a response to the argument has been made and the
examiner maintains the unyielding position without explanation. We do not find this an
acceptable practice by the examiner to the appellants and to this Board. Since the
examiner has not responded substantively to appellants’ arguments and in our view, we do
not agree with the examiner’s asserted unsupported line on reasoning for modifying
Schanin, we find that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to Schanin alone. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 1-12.
Similarly, the examiner relies on Moyer to teach the claimed invention and again
states that the same claim limitation, concerning requesting control of the system bus prior
to determining whether control is required, is not taught or suggested by Moyer. The
examiner states the “Irwin discloses all of the above mentioned features of the present
invention.” The examiner then cites to the entire detailed disclosure. (See answer at page
8.) Again, we do not find the examiner’s practice of citing the entire detailed disclosure to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007