Appeal No. 2005-0859 Page 4
Application No. 10/015,965
word between an electronic module and a microprocessor. The
examiner does not cite any portion of Chiang for a disclosure of
the claim 9 hardware circuit that includes means for implementing
one of a direct convention and an indirect convention of an order
of bits of a word as a function of a value of a convention
signal.
We therefore find that the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation of the
inventions claimed in the appellant’s independent claims 1, 5
and 9 or dependent claims 3 and 7 which depend, respectively,
from claims 1 and 5.
As for the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner does not rely upon Chiang, alone or in combination with
Van Rensburg or Muwafi, for any disclosure that would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the above-
discussed claim features that are not disclosed by Chiang.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness of the inventions
claimed in the appellant’s claims 2, 4, 6 and 8.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007