Appeal No. 96-0033
Application 08/066,638
that Trost also teaches a variable clocking rate for the data
transfers between devices 10 and 11 does not belittle the merits
of the rejection as applied to the claimed invention.
In the context of asserting that independent claim 1 is
patentable because of the language recited in the “at least R
buffer registers” clause as quoted at page 14 of the brief, the
position advocated is that an optimum number of registers is
therefore available for use without any overrun or superfluous
number of registers. As pointed out by the examiner at page 11
of the answer, the disclosure is consistent with the argument
that a minimum number of registers is determined according to the
relationship set forth in the claim and in accordance with the
“at least” language of the above-noted clause. Appellants’
arguments as to this clause of claim 1 on appeal do not assert
that Trost does not teach or suggest to the artisan within 35
U.S.C. § 103 the subject matter of this clause. As noted again
by the examiner at page 11 of the answer, the examiner has
asserted that there are portions specifically identified in Trost
to meet the language of that clause.
As to dependent claims 2 to 5, the positions set forth by
appellants at page 15 of the brief indicate that they have not
argued the particulars of these respective claims in any manner
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007