Appeal No. 2000-0064
Application 08/625,241
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
The examiner notes that Fleming fails to explicitly
disclose the limitation of transferring information in parallel
with the processing of information. The examiner cites Stone as
teaching that this is known in the art. The examiner finds that
it would have been obvious to the artisan to incorporate the
teachings of Stone into Fleming’s device [answer, pages 8-11].
Appellants argue that the examiner’s reliance on a small
introductory portion of the Stone textbook is misleading.
Appellants also argue that Fleming does not teach the first and
second buses as asserted by the examiner. Appellants further
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007