Appeal No. 2001-0149
Application 08/896,001
The factual inquiry must “be based on objective
evidence of record.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d
1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This “showing must be clear and
particular.” In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614,
1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “[T]he Board must not only assure that
the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed
to support the agency’s conclusion.” Lee, 277 F.3d at 1344,
61 USPQ2d at 1434. With these principles in mind, we commence
review of the pertinent evidence and arguments of Appellant and
Examiner.
The Examiner argues that Winlow teaches a programmable
interconnect logic block in which the programmable logic devices
and the programmable interconnect logic block are programmable
logic arrays. Further, the Examiner argues that the final office
action addresses the arguments of the limitations that recite an
array of logic devices in that the cited prior art of Winlow
teaches an array of one column and multiple rows. Furthermore,
the Examiner refers to the teaching of arrays as cited in the
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). See Examiner’s Answer,
page 7, lines 6-14.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007