Appeal No. 1997-4115 Page 11
Application No. 08/325,765
flip-flops, we are not persuaded that the combination of the
references teaches or would have suggested “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” as specified in claims 1, 2, and 4-7
or “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” as specified in claims 8-10 and 12.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007