Appeal No. 1999-0133
Application No. 08/459,570 Page 10
of product-terms or input lines available to each output line of
the logic allocator recited in appellants’ claims. The examiner
has not pointed to any showing in Agrawal that would teach or
suggest any modification of the logic allocator by changing the
demultiplexers and logic gates to provide the logic allocator
with programmable access to the claimed numbers of product terms
and input lines. From all of the above, we find the examiner's
broad, conclusionary statements to be unsupported by evidence in
the record. We therefore conclude that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of independent
claims 1, 13, and 28. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1,
13, and 28, as well as dependent claims 2-12, 14, 15, 17-22, and
24-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of dependent claims 16 and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), where the examiner additionally relies
upon Ha as evidence of obviousness. We reverse the rejection of
claims 16 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as the examiner has not
pointed to any teaching in Ha that would make up for the basic
deficiencies of Agrawal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007