Appeal No. 2000-0064
Application 08/625,241
Board decision. Although the wrong claim was mistakenly inserted
into the previous Board decision, the decision itself quotes from
the correct version of the claims on appeal. Thus, the previous
Board decision made no findings with respect to the presently
claimed first and second buses and the claimed parallel
processing and transferring of information. To the extent that
the examiner’s position considers that the previous Board
decision addressed these features, that position is in error.
Appellants are correct to argue that the communication
link in Fleming is not a bus. It appears to be a radio link of
some kind. Although we would prefer to be considering arguments
directed to the obviousness of replacing the communication link
of Fleming with a bus, such arguments are not of record because
the examiner’s finding is that the communication link is a bus.
As argued by appellants in the reply brief and unrebutted by the
examiner, this finding of the examiner is erroneous.
We also agree with appellants that the portion of Stone
relied on by the examiner does not support the obviousness of the
parallel processing and transferring as claimed. The examiner
refers to the portion of Stone wherein it states “[t]he execution
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007