Appeal No. 2004-0856 Page 7
Application No. 09/676,704
explanation that because "the memory storage device of Smith operates with both a
write clock and a read clock, Smith clearly teaches operating a storage device in
multiple clock domains, rather than in a single clock domain corresponding to the
fastest one of a plurality of clocks, as presently claimed." (Reply Br. at 4.)
Because the examiner offers no evidence to support his allegation, and the
appellants' specification and Smith each discloses buffers operating in plural clock
domains, we are unpersuaded that persons of ordinary skill would have recognized that
the combination of Leong, Smith, and Dean would necessarily have detected a fastest
one of a plurality of clocks and operated a storage element in a single clock domain
corresponding to the fastest clock. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of
claim 1; of claims 2-11 and 13-15, which depend therefrom; of claim 16; and of claim 17
and claims 18-20, which depend therefrom.
The examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Ryherd cures
the aforementioned deficiency of Leong, Smith, and Dean. Therefore, we reverse the
obviousness rejection of claim 12, which depends from claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejections of claims 1-20 under § 103(a) are reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007