Ex parte BATES et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 95-2219                                                          
          Application 08/041,922                                                      

          Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir.            
          1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).                                   
               The Examiner argues on pages 3 and 4 of the answer that                
          Brown teaches “the invention substantially as claimed.”  The                
          Examiner refers to Appellants’ claim 1 and states the following:            
               Brown et al. did not specifically detail a second value                
               at a second addressable storage location determined                    
               from a second address specified by said instruction and                
               the state of said processor condition code, exactly as                 
               claimed.  However, it would have been obvious to one of                
               ordinary skill in the art, at the time the claimed                     
               invention was made, that any value stored in any                       
               storage location has to be specified by an address in                  
               order to retrieve the value form a processor (i.e., AU)                
               to operate on the value.  As to the second value to be                 
               determined by, including the processor’s condition code                
               it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in                 
               the art that to differentiate the first value from the                 
               second value for representing pixels or points, one of                 
               the values has to be different and could be specified                  
               by condition code and addresses.                                       
          We note that the Examiner has not provided any further evidence             
          to support his case.                                                        
               Appellants argue on page 3 of the reply brief that the                 
          Examiner has admitted that Brown does not teach logic for                   
          decoding instructions as recited in Appellants’ claims.                     
          Appellants argue that the Examiner provides no teaching or                  
          support whatsoever in support of his assertion that it would have           
          been obvious to provide such logic, but instead the Examiner only           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007