It would seem that this time the examiner is saying that I can find everything that is claimed either existing as such or was alluded to/suggested. Hence putting in all together did not have the inventive stroke that is needed.

But IMHO I think the examiner overlooks one cirtical point about combining of the prior art. Let's look at the benefits claimed by the 148 invention:

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Accordingly, it is an object of this invention to provide a microprocessor with a reduced pin count and cost compared to conventional microprocessors.

It is another object of the invention to provide a high performance microprocessor that can be directly connected to DRAMs without sacrificing microprocessor speed.

It is a further object of the invention to provide a high performance microprocessor in which DMA does not require use of the main CPU during DMA requests and responses and which provides very rapid DMA response with predictable response times.

So, my question is, would simply taking the prior art and combining the different ideas result in the benefits claimed by the invention? If not, how many additional modifications would be required to get there? Would the prior art necessarily lead one to the proper modifications? It would certainly be a relief to obtain 1. Specific reasons why the benefits do not automatically result and the modifications needed (I'm not an EE) 2. That such an argument as this might hold water to counter the obviousness claim. (I'm not a PA, but it sounds good doesn't it?) Thoughts/Comments welcomed.

PS. Wonder why the examiner did not cite any prior art where they were using a second off-chip, non-system clock as mentioned in the 148? Isn't that idea critical to making the 148 any superior over existing art of the time? Opty