Appeal No. 2004-1629
Application No. 09/507,204
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-14, 17, 18
and 21 over McLellan cannot be sustained.
With respect to the rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 19 and
20, the Examiner modifies McLellan by moving the relative
position of the stall register and further relies on Peatman for
disclosing the use of binary counters in rejecting claims 15 and
16 (answer, pages 12-15). However, in discussing these
modifications, the Examiner has pointed to no additional teaching
that would have overcome the deficiencies of McLellan as
discussed above with respect to the independent claims 1 and 7.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 19
and 20 over McLellan and of claims 15 and 16 over McLellan and
Peatman cannot be sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007