Appeal No. 2001-2593
Application No. 09/074,197
failed to establish how the delay elements of Nash that are
positively disclosed to be clocked, may be substituted by
unclocked delay elements, as recited in claims 23 and 28.
Based on our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because
Nash neither teaches nor would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art using an unclocked delay element for delaying
the fourth input by a predetermined time interval. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 23 and
28 over Nash.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007