Appeal No. 2006-0943
Application No. 09/923,604
(Fig. 3), which are obtained from line 110 (Fig. 1). The only feedback to combinational
logic circuit 1, however, occurs during normal sequential circuit operation.
The provided evidence thus fails to support the examiner’s findings in support of
the rejection. A prima facie case for obviousness of the claimed subject matter has not
been established. Cf. In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (in a determination of unpatentability “the Board must point to some concrete
evidence in the record in support of [the] findings.”). We cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kasuya, Patel,
and Hamzaoglu.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007