Appeal No. 1998-2189
Application 08/097,372
Thus, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness as to the reasons to combine.
CONCLUSION
Because the Examiner (1) failed to show the limitation of
"said clock signal being exclusively driven by the first
processor means," and (2) provided no explanation of how Bush
and Costes should be combined to produce the claimed subject
matter, we conclude that the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness as to claim 1 and its
dependent claims 2-9. Independent claim 10 stands or falls
together with claim 1. Independent claim 13 contains a
limitation in addition to the limitations of claim 1 and, so,
is also patentable over the combination of Bush and Costes.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-10 and 13 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
- 14 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007