Appeal No. 96-2237
Application 08/113,509
Our study of Johnson leads us to agree with this assessment
which prohibits the affirmance of the rejection additionally
because
the teachings and showings in Johnson clearly would not have
been able to meet the requirement of the processor completing
the second access cycle before the first access is complete, a
feature common to both independent claims 14 and 21 on appeal.
Therefore, the rejection of independent claims 14 and 21 and
their respective dependent claims must be reversed.
We reach an opposite conclusion, however, as to
independent method claim 20 on appeal. To the extent recited
in this claim, we note that certain input latches are noted to
exist in the art although not shown in Johnson in the discus-
sion beginning at column 5, line 55. Claim 20 recites that
there is placed on the address bus a first address, it is
latched in the respective memory and then the process ceases
to activate the address on the address bus. This three step
process is repeated in the claim for the "other" of the in-
struction address and data address. The claim then recites
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007