Appeal No. 1998-2189
Application 08/097,372
are not argued, we do not rely on them as a basis for our
decision. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv).
Combination
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
"to implement clock signals exclusively driven by a processor
in Bush because these exclusively driven clock signals are
well known in the bidirectional data transfer art, as seen in
Costes and therefore represents no patentably distinct feature
over the prior art" (EA5).
Assuming, arguendo, that it is true that an exclusively
driven clock signals was shown in Costes, the Examiner has not
explained how he proposes to modify Bush to incorporate the
clock of Costes. Nor do we find any motivation in the
references for the (unspecified) modification. The Examiner
has merely found a clock and made a conclusory statement that
it would have been obvious to combine without providing any
logical reasons or analysis. Moreover, as already noted, the
Examiner's rejection fails to address most of the functional
limitations of the claims and we have no idea how the
references could be combined to cure these deficiencies.
- 13 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007