Appeal No. 2002-1994
Application No. 09/364,449
coupled to byte 0 of cache group 01, and so forth
(specification, page 11, lines 17-21).
In view of the analysis above, we find that the examiner
has met the burden of providing a prima facie case of
anticipation by showing that Thatcher teaches a plurality of
storage units and a plurality of groups of storage units wherein
“each group of the plurality of groups is operable for reading a
data value from a corresponding storage unit is said group”, as
recited in independent claim 4. Accordingly, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 4, as well as claims 5 and 8
which are grouped with claim 4 as standing or falling therewith,
over Thatcher.
Turning now to the rejection of claim 6, as well as claim 7
which is grouped therewith, Appellants assert that the control
mechanism of Thatcher is not disclosed to be a logic array
(brief, page 11). The Examiner responds by relying on Figures 1
and 2 of Thatcher and asserts that the data formatter includes
an array of logic which receives the formatter address for
selecting the data value in a storage unit (answer, page 9). We
also find that Thatcher discloses circuitry for selecting a data
value including an address generator 10 for providing the
formatter address to the data formatter 14 which is used to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007