Appeal No. 1999-0166
Application No. 08/656,544
more than the software programming of clock speed that permits
a microprocessor to operate at a plurality of user selected
frequencies. There is no indication on the record by the
Examiner as to how the proposed combination of Greenberger and
Ganapathy would meet the specifics of the language of the
claims on appeal. 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 basis of the rejection before us.
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA
1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), reh’g denied, 390
U.S. 1000 (1968).
With respect to the Sakai reference, added by the
Examiner to the proposed combination of Greenberger and
Ganapathy, we find that Sakai’s disclosure does not cure the
deficiencies of Greenberger and Ganapathy discussed supra.
Regardless of the merits of the Examiner’s contention that
Sakai provides a teaching of auxiliary circuit access only
when executing a program instruction from an instruction
subset, we find no disclosure of the specific clock selection
criteria set forth in Appellant’s claims. Similarly, our
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007