Ex parte CAROL E. BASSETT - Page 10

          Appeal No. 95-4957                                                          
          Application 07/950,979                                                      

          We are unable to follow the examiner’s reasoning that the                   
          addressing scheme of claim 1 is necessarily met by the pipeline             
          processing of Kronstadt.  The examiner has found equivalence                
          between the burst mode transfer of data and the pipelining of               
          Kronstadt [supplemental answer, page 8].  We see no reason why              
          the memory controller of Kronstadt would have to generate any               
          addresses in addition to those received from the host processor             
          in pipelined fashion.  In fact, the generation of “REAL ADDRESS”            
          between the CPU 10 and the memory controller 18 of Kronstadt                
          would suggest that the memory controller does not generate                  
          additional addresses.  There is no evidence in the record of this           
          case that any generation of second addresses is required in the             
          operation of the Kronstadt memory.                                          

          In summary, there are several differences between the                       
          recitations of claim 1 and the teachings of Kronstadt which have            
          been asserted by appellants as patentably distinguishing over the           
          reference.  The examiner has basically dismissed all these                  
          differences as being inherent, equivalent or simply obvious.  The           
          record does not support the examiner’s findings.  Therefore, we             


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007