Appeal No. 2001-0149
Application 08/896,001
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Winlow in view of Terrill.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Winlow and Terrill as applied to
claims 1-16 above, and further in view of Mooney.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the Brief1 and the Answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given the subject matter
on appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of
Appellant and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner states that Winlow discloses a system
comprising a plurality of programmable logic devices (element
1 The Appellant filed an appeal brief, Paper No. 11, on
April 26, 2000. The case was remanded to the Examiner on
June 10, 2002. The Appellant filed an amended appeal brief,
Paper No. 14, on July 16, 2002. We will refer to the amended
appeal brief as simply the brief. The Examiner’s Answer, Paper
No. 15, was mailed on July 26, 2002.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007