Appeal 2007-0399
Application 09/961,024
these claims include the language “wherein the plurality of
transmit (receive) control registers comprises at least one of ”.
(Emphasis added). Considering this limitation’s wording, we
find the claim language met as indicated in the rejection by the
recitation of just a few of the registers. We find a similar
argument with respect to claim 16 similarly met by Examiner’s
pointing out the direct control mode in Baker.
8. With respect to Claim 30, we find that the claimed limitation of
selecting alternative transmit and receive FIFOs when a first
one is not available is taught by Baker, for reasons cited by
Examiner. (Answer 13, middle).
9. With respect to Claim 35, Examiner contends that Holm
teaches a data bus width “can be any size and the clock rate can
be any speed” (Holm, col. 8, l. 32) and the claimed limitation of
a nibble, two-bit or serial width would be a design choice
within the abilities of the practitioner in this art. We find no
evidence of an error in this statement.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal, Appellants bear the burden of showing that the Examiner
has not established a legally sufficient basis for the rejection of the claims.
“In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We note our reviewing court has recently reaffirmed that:
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013