Appeal No. 2006-2332
Application No. 09/751,610
The examiner also finds that Li does not disclose that the Johnson counter has N JK
flip-flops in the particular arrangement required by claim 20. The rejection turns to
Epstein’s Figure 4 as disclosing a Johnson counter using JK flip-flops consistent with
the claimed arrangement. Mano is further relied upon as teaching the reliability of JK
flip-flops. The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to implement the
five stage Johnson counter described by Li with a five JK flip-flop circuit arranged in
accordance with the teachings of Epstein. (Answer at 3-4.)
Appellant submits there is no prior art evidence of a suggestion for combining the
references, nor evidence of a reasonable expectation of success of the combination.
Appellant notes that Epstein’s Johnson counter has only three flip-flops. Mano does not
discuss Johnson counters, or the relative merits of different Johnson counters. (Brief at
13.) Neither Li nor Epstein shows a Johnson counter having an input JK flip- flop, an
output JK flip-flop, and “a plurality of middle” JK flip-flops (i.e., a minimum of four JK flip-
flops) as claimed. As for the “reasonable expectation of success,” appellant submits
there is no evidence of how the elements of Li, Epstein, and Mano are to be arranged
and assembled together. (Id. at 14.)
Appellant further argues that column 5 of Li describes the Johnson counter as a
divide by ten, five bit shift register. According to appellant, there is no suggestion in Li
that a Johnson counter may be fabricated from JK flip-flops, and although Epstein
shows a Johnson counter the counter has only three JK flip-flops. (Reply Brief at 5.)
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007