Appeal No. 2004-0500
Application No. 09/488,783
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 1, 3-5,
14, and 15. Accordingly, we affirm.
At page 6 of the Brief, Appellant nominally asserts the
separate patentability of each of the claims on appeal. We will
consider the appealed claims separately only to the extent separate
arguments for patentability are presented. Any dependent claim not
separately argued will stand or fall with its base claim. Note In
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner proposes to
modify the register access system disclosure of Gray. According to
the Examiner (Answer, pages 3 and 4), Gray discloses the claimed
invention except that the described read and write transfers are
not explicitly disclosed as being single burst transfers. To
address this deficiency, the Examiner turns to the Ramamurthy
reference which describes the single burst access of registers
which are assigned consecutive addresses. In the Examiner’s line
of reasoning (id., at 4), the skilled artisan would have been
motivated and found it obvious to provide the register access
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007