Appeal No. 2003-1430
Application No. 09/414,458
We observe that Glass, as depicted in the annotated copy of
Figure 4 (Attachment I to the answer), discloses that each MUX
receives a content of the same line (field) 16 (G or H) which is
different from the claimed features. Glass actually discloses a
multiplexer arrangement for switching appropriate halves of a
selected register (col. 21, lines 32-36), and not for receiving a
content of a particular field in two storage locations.
Therefore, what the Examiner takes for different fields are, in
fact the low and the high bits of a register, shown as sections I
and H in the annotated copy of Figure 4 of Glass.
In view of the analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to meet the burden of providing a prima facie case of
anticipation since, as discussed above, the multiplexers of Glass
correspond to the same register content instead of each to a
particular field. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 over Glass cannot be sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007