Appeal No. 2003-1965
Application 09/275,496
Examiner’s reliance on Buckner’s history buffer fails to show
preforming a monitoring function as required by claim 20. In
particular, Appellant argues that the term monitoring means to
keep track of. Appellant argues that Buckner’s history buffer
align but does not perform monitoring. Upon our review of
Buckner, we agree with the Appellant that the Examiner has not
shown a prima facie case of showing that Buckner teaches “a
monitoring system for monitoring a time relationship between
common data received at the history buffers and the system clock”
as required by Appellant’s claims 20 and 21. Therefore, we will
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
For the rejection of claims 5 through 8, 13 through 15 and
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Buckner, we
note that the Examiner relies on the above reasoning for this
rejection as well. Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection
for the same reasons.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007