Appeal No. 2004-0856 Page 3
Application No. 09/676,704
Claims 1-11 and 13-201 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
U.S. Patent No. 5,963,499 ("Leong"); U.S. Patent No. 4,965,794 ("Smith"); and U.S.
Patent No. 5,914,757 ("Dean"). Claim 12 stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious
over Leong; Smith; Dean; and U.S. Patent No. 4,970,499 ("Ryherd").
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on the point of contention therebetween. The examiner admits that Leong "does
not disclose that his device detects a fastest one of a plurality of clocks and operates in
a clock domain of that fastest clock." (Examiner's Answer at 4.) Noting that "Leong
clearly teaches that buffers can connect devices that operate at different speeds," (id. at
11), however, he asserts, "what is clearly understood by the skilled artisan is that the
buffer therefore must operate at the faster of the two speeds. Otherwise errors or
unacceptable inefficiencies result." (Id.) The appellants argue, "the Examiner fails to
show that Leong's device with the asserted modification would necessarily detect a
fastest one of a plurality of clocks and operate a storage element in a single clock
1Although the examiner's statement of the rejection over Leong, Smith, and Dean
encompasses claim 12, (Examiner's Answer at 4), his explanation thereof omits the
claim. (Id. at 4-9.) Furthermore, the examiner includes a separate rejection for
claim 12. (Id. at 9.) Accordingly, we treat the former rejection as inapplicable to
claim 12.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007