Appeal No. 1997-4115 Page 8
Application No. 08/325,765
assignment is disclosed.” (Id. at 11.) We agree with the
appellant.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 each specifies in pertinent part the
following limitations: “for each output of the finite state
machine, generating an output flip-flop which stores the
output” and “assigning values to unspecified output values so
that each state can be uniquely identified by current values
stored by the output flip-flops and a minimum of additional
flip-flops.” Similarly, claims 8-10 and 12 each specify in
pertinent part the following limitations: “for each output of
the finite state machine, generating an output flip-flop which
stores the output” and “assigning values to unspecified output
values so that each state can be uniquely identified by
current values stored by the output flip-flops generated ...
and a minimum of additional flip-flops.”
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
these limitations in the prior art. Regarding Chandra, the
examiner admits, “flip-flops are not explicitly referred to,”
(Examiner’s Answer at 10), but alleges, “flip-flops are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007