1 Application for patent filed August 27, 1993.
With regard to claim 6, Appellant argues:
The final Action acknowledges that the Holsztynski
‘019 and ‘474 patents fail to teach or suggest
routing a carry or carry/borrow signal directly to
an addressable memory, but relies on the Morton
patent to make up for the deficiencies of
Holsztynski. This reliance is unfounded because
Morton does not show any mechanism for writing a
carry output to an addressable storage means.
(Emphasis added.) (Brief-page 39.)
At page 13 of the Answer, the Examiner explains how
Morton has an addressable memory. However, there is no
showing in any of the cited references that “the carry bit
from the ALU output is routed to the addressable memory means
without passing through any intervening clockable storage
means,” as recited in claim 6. Again, the Examiner has not
shown Appellant’s implementation to be shown or suggested by
the references of record. Thus, we will not sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 6, and likewise
claims 20 and 28 which depend therefrom and contain the same
unmet limitations.
Claims 4 and 5, which stand rejected with claim 6 as
being unpatentable over Holsztynski in view of Morton, are
dependent from claim 3, not claim 6. We have decided supra,
with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection, that
Holsztynski does not meet the requirements of claim 3,
91
Application for patent filed August 27, 1993.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007