Appeal No. 2003-2108
Application No. 08/881,123
never outputted to “subsequently deactivate the generated
acknowledgment signal if an access actuation signal is
deactivated” (claims 1 and 15). For this reason, the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 15 is reversed.
Turning to claim 2, if the acknowledgment signal and the
access request signal in Craft are the same signal, then we agree
with the appellant’s arguments (brief, page 10; reply brief,
pages 4 and 5) that Craft can not “generate and transmit the
access request signal to said memory controller in response to
the generation of the corresponding acknowledgment signal.”
Thus, the anticipation rejection of claim 2 is reversed.
The anticipation rejection of claim 5 is reversed because we
agree with the appellant’s arguments (brief, pages 11 and 12;
reply brief, pages 5 and 6) that Craft does not disclose
“deactivating the acknowledgment signal after the access
actuation signal is deactivated” because the two noted signals
are a combined signal in Craft.
The anticipation rejection of claims 6, 16 and 17 is
reversed because Craft does not disclose activating an
acknowledgment signal after generating an access actuation signal
(brief, pages 11 and 12). As indicated supra, the two signals
are combined into a single signal in Craft.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007