Appeal No. 2000-2067
Application No. 08/859,278
will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Further,
Claims 2, 4 and 7 through 12 are dependent on claim 1, and
therefore include the aforementioned limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
2, 4 and 7 through 12 for the same reasons as above. We also
note that the remaining independent claims, claims 13, 18 and 23,
require the limitations of two independent processors as
discussed with respect to claim 1. Since the Examiner again
relied on the Cohen-Skalli reference for teaching the limitations
of two independent processors, for the reasons set forth supra,
we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 18 and
23. Lastly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 14
through 17 and 19 through 22, which are dependent on claims 13
and 18 and therefore include the aforementioned limitations of
claims 13 and 18.
We note that in rejecting claims 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, which are dependent on independent claim 1, the Examiner
further applied the Kajitani and Miller references to the
combination of the Cohen-Skalli, Kawamata and Hirota references.
However, we find nothing in the Kajitani and Miller references
that provides any suggestion for overcoming the Cohen-Skalli,
Kawamata and Hirota references’ deficiency of failing to teach
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007