Appeal 2007-0708
Application 09/881,367
processing is non- programmable. Nonetheless, we agree with the Examiner
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that
programmable processing devices were well-known in the art to help
increase the degree of freedom in circuit design. Therefore, the ordinarily
skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
Ogawa and knowledge of the prior art yield the invention as recited in claim
9. It follows that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 9 as being
unpatentable over Ogawa.
As to claims 18 through 20, we have found that Ogawa teaches a
receiving circuit including a pipeline register and an encapsulation circuit for
processing the parameters of an incoming frame to produce parameters of an
outgoing frame to be used by an external circuit. (Finding of fact 7 through
9). We nonetheless agree with the Examiner that Wilford teaches a plurality
of peripheral devices for processing parameters of incoming packet.
Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to
combine the teachings of Ogawa and Wilford to yield the invention as
recited in claims 18 through 20. It follows that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 18 through 20 as being unpatentable over the combination
of Ogawa and Wilford.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
failed to establish that Ogawa anticipates the claimed invention under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e). Further, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner failed
to establish that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013