Appeal No. 1999-0225
Application No. 08/563,188
circuitry 40 and the claimed elements in Appellants’ illustrations
in Figures 1 and 3.
In view of the above discussion and the totality of the
evidence on the record, it is our opinion that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness which has not been
rebutted by any convincing arguments from Appellants. Accordingly,
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 1, as
well as dependent claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 not separately argued by
Appellants, is sustained.
With respect to dependent claim 2, grouped separately by
Appellants, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
this claim as well. Although Appellants suggest (Brief, page 8)
that the Examiner has not addressed the language of this claim, we
find a detailed explanation of the Examiner’s position at pages 5
and 13 of the Answer. In our view, the Examiner’s line of
reasoning establishes a prima facie case of obviousness which has
not been rebutted by any arguments from Appellants.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 5, grouped and argued separately by Appellants. We
agree with the Examiner (Answer, page 14) that, in view of the
applied Schnorf and Lang references, the skilled artisan would
recognize the obviousness of reproducing data from a transfer bus
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007