Appeal No. 2004-0573
Application No. 09/406,017
With respect to dependent claim 3, the examiner adds the teachings of Giramma
to teach the use of N-NARY logic. Appellants argue that Giramma does not teach the
use of N-Nary logic, 1-of-N signal or an N-NARY signal. (Brief at pages 25-26.)
Appellants have identified that N-NARY logic has been defined and discussed in the
specification and in various other patents, some of which are incorporated by reference
in the present specification to define this logic. Appellants argue that Giramma teaches
binary logic rather than N-NARY logic as recited in dependent claim 1. We agree with
appellants that Giramma does not teach or suggest N-NARY logic as defined by
appellants. Therefore, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to dependent claim 3, and we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 3, 8, 13, 18, and 23.
With respect to dependent claim 4, the examiner relies upon the teachings of
Rostoker at column 44 to teach a parser for the program. Appellants argue that
Rostoker does not teach a parser that translates the monitor code into code that uses a
standard computer language. While we are unclear whether appellants intend for the
“parser” to perform some additional function beyond a standard parsing function, we do
find that Rostoker would have employed a parsing function as evidenced in Figure 10
and parser element 1004 as described in columns 24-25. Therefore, we find that the
simulation system of Rostoker teaches the use of a parser. Therefore, we will sustain
the rejection of dependent claims 4, 9, 14, 19, and 24.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007