Appeal No. 1997-4125 Page 9
Application No. 08/261,523
coupled in parallel by said clock signal at said
transmitting node; and
said bus including a separate line for
transmitting said clock signal to said receiving
node, and said receiving node including means to
phase align said respective bits on each of said
lines separately with respect to said clock signal
transmitted to said receiving node.
In short, the claims each recite individually phase-aligning
data bits transmitted on lines of a bus with respect to a
clock signal transmitted along with the data on another line
of the bus.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the claimed limitation. “Obviousness may not be established
using hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of
the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73
F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert.
denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303,
311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “The mere fact that the prior
art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007