Appeal No. 1998-2189
Application 08/097,372
OPINION
Grouping of claims
The Examiner errs in stating that the brief fails to
separately argue the claims and that, therefore, the claims
stand or fall together (EA2). Appellant's brief clearly
argues four separate groupings of claims, as discussed in
Appellants' reply brief (RBr1-4). Since the rejection
addresses all the claims, the Examiner's statement is harmless
error and it is not necessary to remand the case to the
Examiner.
Obviousness
Appellant argues that the combination of Bush and Costes
does not disclose the limitations of "said direction signal
being exclusively driven by the first processor means" and
"said clock signal being exclusively driven by the first
processor means," and does provide any motivation for the
combination.
Direction signal
The Examiner seems to find the "first processor means" to
be the CPU 12 in Bush and, by default, the "second processor
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007