Appeal No. 2003-0440
Application No. 09/430,162
the second enclosure are memory access components, which would
not include video controllers. In addition, appellants contend
(Brief, pages 6-9, and Reply Brief, pages 5-7) that the
examiner's motivation for combining the two references "is not
based on objective evidence of record and it does not in any way
suggest the particular combination of structure recited in the
present claims" (see Brief, page 7).
We have carefully reviewed both Vicard and Hong, and we find
no suggestion to locate the computer processor in a first
enclosure and a video controller separate from the computer
processor, in a second enclosure. Vicard (column 6, lines 37-51)
discloses which components should reside in each enclosure, but
does not mention a video controller. Hong merely states that
processor-independence accommodates graphics such as motion
video, but makes no mention of the video controller being located
in a second enclosure. Therefore, we agree with appellants that
neither reference teaches or suggests a second enclosure
including a video controller. Likewise, we find nothing in the
references that would teach or suggest combining the two
references as asserted by the examiner. Consequently, we cannot
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6, 7, 10
through 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 29 over Vicard in view of Hong.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007