Appeal No. 1999-0288
Application No. 08/538,071 Page 19
obviousness of the claimed invention set forth in claims 6, 8-11,
14-18, 20-25, 28-31, and 33-40. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 6, 8-11, 14-18, 20-25, 28-31, and 33-40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wibecan in view of Brantley is
reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 8-11, 14-18, 20-25,
28-31, 33-36, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gover in view of Wibecan. As correctly noted by the
examiner (final rejection, page 19), Gover teaches the use of
plural MMCRs as well as accessing a second MMCR to check its
logical contents. However, as admitted by the examiner (id.)
"Gover does not show the determining of a bit in a machine state
register" and that (final rejection, page 22) that “Gover does
not show the use of a performance monitor bit, to mark specific
process for counting, in a state register to aid in controlling
the counting of events." Accordingly, we reverse the rejection
of claims 8-11, 14-18, 20-25, 28-31, 33-36, 38, and 39 because
Gover does not make up for the deficiencies of Wibecan, and the
examiner's arguments are not a substitute for evidence in the
record.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007