Appeal No. 1997-4217
Application No. 08/307,178
backs up [in time]” (emphasis added). Note also that Judd
clearly states that “[t]his ensures that each device 218 will
never have to back up to a previous state and time.” (Col.
14, lines 47 to 49). The other reference, Catlin, does not
cure this noted deficiency. Catlin is not concerned about the
synchronization of the simulation of multiple processes having
different step time responses. Consequently, there is no need
in Catlin to back up one process in time to catch up and get
synchronized with another process. All the independent
claims, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 17 and 18 contain the same or
similar limitation. Therefore, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection over Judd and Catlin of the independent
claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 17 and 18 and, hence, their
dependent claims 6 to 10, and 12 to 16.
In conclusion, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1
to 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007