Appeal No. 2000-0259
Application No. 08/827,835
accept a signal input. Our interpretation of the disclosure of
Opoczynski coincides with that of Appellant, i.e., a kill signal
is generated to disable a malfunctioning slave system, not to
selectively enable one in an address-free manner as claimed.
We similarly find no disclosure in any of the applied prior
art that would support the Examiner’s position as to the specific
shift register structure set forth in independent claim 29.
Although the Examiner is correct (Answer, page 9) that
Appellant’s argued terminology “barrel shifting” does not appear
in the claims, a specific interconnection of shift register
outputs and inputs is recited, an interconnection which is not
taught or suggested by any disclosure in the applied prior art.
Further, even assuming, arguendo, that the applied
references could be combined, there is no indication as to how
and in what manner the combination would take place to produce
the specific combination set forth in the appealed claims. In
order for us to sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, we would need to resort to speculation or unfounded
assumptions or rationales to supply deficiencies in the factual
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007