Appeal No. 1998-0613
Application 08/554,998
Appellants’ brief argues:
1. The specification is not required to explicitly
teach addresses associated with I/O commands if such
knowledge was generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the computer art prior to the date of the
application.
2. Addresses are inherently associated with I/O
commands as part of the general knowledge available
to one of ordinary skill in the computer art prior
to the date of the application.
3. There is support in the specification as filed
for a sequence of non-identical addresses associated
with I/O commands.
(Brief-page 4.)
The issue appears to be that the Examiner believes
Appellants’ specification provides for activation of an I/O
board without using addresses. Thus, the Examiner would have
us believe “and addresses” should not be included in the claim
language. This brings us to Appellants’ only relevant
argument, number 3.
The specification is virtually littered with various
references to “addresses” and “I/O commands”. The central
question is, are they used together to activate an I/O board.
Skipping through the specification we see at page 11, lines
25-26, a base address is selected from a list. Page 11, lines
31-34, disclose this list as “designed to start with the most
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007