Appeal No. 2002-2330
Application No. 09/116,260 Page 5
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (answer, pages 4-6) is that Hagqvist
does not disclose that the delay value can be stored as an
instruction. To overcome this deficiency in Hagqvist, the
examiner turns to Morrison for a teaching that delay value or
firing time is well known, and provides intelligence to the
instruction stream. In the examiner's opinion, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have realized that by adding this extra
intelligence to the instructions, processing can be streamlined
and resources can be properly utilized. The examiner asserts
that it would have been obvious to provide Hagqvist's data
processing system with a firing time mechanism as taught by
Morrison, because doing so would have provided a mechanism for
adding intelligence to the instruction stream at the object code
level. Appellants assert (brief, page 6) that “[i]t is
respectfully submitted that the Examiner is only selecting bits
and pieces from the references without considering the remaining
teachings of those references which would lead away from the
claimed invention. Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted
that the Examiner is misinterpreting Morrison et al. and
impermissibly modifying Hagqvist et al. In light of Applicants[']
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007