Appeal No. 1998-3331 Page 6
Application No. 08/852,842
auxiliary program memory (28, col. 16, lines 61-65)."
(Examiner's Answer at 4.) The appellants argue that the
memory architecture of the claims "is not shown by either of
the references applied by the Examiner." (Appeal Br. at 6.)
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game is
the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of
Claims--American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. &
Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Here, claims 1, 2, and 4-
10 specify in pertinent part the following limitations: "a
data memory shared by said main DSP and one or more auxiliary
DSPs, a main DSP program memory storing program date of said
main DSP and processing instructions to be executed by said
auxiliary DSP; and a separate auxiliary DSP program memory
mapped into the memory space of said main DSP for storing said
processing instructions." Similarly, claims 11-20 specify in
pertinent part the following limitations: "a main DSP program
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007