Appeal No. 2006-1783
Application No. 09/183,694
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krakirian and Jones.
Claims 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Krakirian, Jones and Bean.
We make reference to the brief (filed October 29, 2002), the
reply brief (filed May 23, 2003), the supplemental reply brief
(filed July 18, 2005), the answer (mailed April 18, 2003) and the
supplemental answer (mailed May 20, 2005) for the respective
positions of Appellants and the Examiner.
OPINION
In rejecting claims 21, 22 and 26, the Examiner takes the
position that claim 21 does not require any reordering done by
either a data controller or a processor and merely requires the
function of reordering (answer, page 8; suppl. answer, page 9).
The Examiner further asserts that the reordering in Krakirian is
done in the CFIFO 217 which is a part of the disk controller IC
204 (suppl. answer, page 9). Appellants argue that the CFIFO 217
of Krakirian is an array of registers which is not understood by
the ordinary skilled artisan to be able to minimize interrupts to
a processor by reordering commands (suppl. reply brief, page 3).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed
in a single prior art reference. See Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007