Appeal No. 96-3978
Application No. 08/092,628
5 of the Answer, is lacking in any rationale as to why the
skilled artisan would modify Bowater in such a manner.
We are further in agreement with Appellant’s assertion on
pages 9 and 10 of the Brief that even assuming, arguendo, that
Bowater and Morgan could be combined as suggested by the
Examiner, the resulting combination would not suggest to one of
ordinary skill the invention set forth in independent claims 21
and 23. In Appellant’s view (Brief, page 8), all of the memory
parameters output from the memory boards in Morgan are static
configuration parameters which are not related to the access
speed or timing characteristic of a memory device. From this
observation, Appellant concludes that Morgan adds nothing to
the teachings of Bowater that would suggest to the skilled
artisan the varying of the speed of memory accesses with
control signals from the memory devices. We agree.
We note that in the responsive arguments portion at page 6
of the Answer, the Examiner has responded to Appellant’s
arguments with regard to the speed related characteristics of
the memory output parameters of Morgan by suggesting that
Morgan’s parameters (error correction, size and number of
banks) are "analogous" to access speed. However, on careful
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007