Appeal No. 1998-0601
Application 08/225,322
As to claim 15, Appellant argues that Miura does not
disclose a logic operator and multiplexer. The Examiner sole
reasoning is that "the use of logic operators in selectors was
well established" (EA6).
We agree with the Examiner that, as a general
proposition, logic operators were well known. However, this
does not address the obviousness of using the error signal and
the mode signal to produce a selecting signal. Furthermore,
the Examiner has said nothing about the multiplexer. Every
limitation must considered in addressing obviousness. See
In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA
1970); In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496
(CCPA 1970). The APA does not show generation of two separate
drive signals DR-R and DR-W from separate drive signal
generators as in figure 4, one of which is selected by a
multiplexer as shown in figure 6. For these reasons, we
conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 15. The
rejection of claim 15 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
- 16 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007