Appeal No. 2003-1965
Application 09/275,496
the clock signal phases 22, 23, 24 and 25 be compared with the
data packets sampled at the clock phase 21. Appellant argues
that Buckner shows in figure 6a and explains in column 4, lines
51 through column 5, line 3 that only data packets sampled at 22
and 25 are compared with data packets sampled at 21. Thus,
Buckner does not teach “comparing the data packet sampled at
preferred intervals with data packet sampled at each of the
neighboring intervals” as required by the claims. See page 2 of
Appellant’s reply brief.
Upon our review of Buckner, we find that Buckner does teach
that the data signal DATA-IN clocked by 21 and 22 are compared.
Furthermore, we find that Buckner teaches that the data signal
DATA-IN clocked by 25 and 21 are compared. However, we fail to
find that Buckner teaches that 21 is compared with 23 and 24.
See Buckner, figure 6a and column 4, line 51 through column 5,
line 3. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1 through 4, 9 through 12 and 16 through 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
For claims 20 through 21, Appellant argues that Buckner does
not teach “a monitoring system for monitoring a time relationship
between common data received at the history buffers and the
system clock.” In particular, Appellant argues that the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007