Appeal No. 1998-1114
Application 08/353,254
relied on in the rejection, and shall explain how such
limitations render the claimed subject matter unobvious over
the prior art."). Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs.,
952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It
is not the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.").
The Examiner states (EA7-8):
[S]ome of the above identified differences are at least
partially taught by elements of the prior art. To wit:
With respect to difference (1), Yaezawa teaches the
use of a comparator circuit (Fig. 1, element 6)
connected to a key memory (Fig. 1, element 2) and an
input register (Fig. 1, element 4), while Wong
teaches the use of an R-S flip-flop (Fig. 4, element
52).
Additionally, with respect to difference (2), Wong
discloses the use of a tri-state buffer (Wong at
abstract and Fig. 4, element 62).
. . .
Finally, with respect to differences (3) and (4), it
is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found these differences to have been
obvious at the time the invention was made. A proper
analysis of these differences, therefore, begins with an
inquiry into who one of ordinary skill in the art would
be[.]
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007