Appeal No. 96-0033
Application 08/066,638
In addition to a detailed correspondence of the structure of
representative independent claim 1 on appeal in the statement of
the rejection in the answer, the examiner has addressed each of
the arguments presented by appellants beginning at page 8 of the
brief. We add our own views as to these arguments.
At page 9 of the brief, appellants assert that Trost does
not show the claimed decoding means. Appellants’ position
questions the ability of the decoding means claimed to be met in
the context of the position that there are no “strobe in” signals
of the argued decoding means in Trost. This position is
misplaced since the corresponding clock signal 41 exiting the
dynamic storage means 10 in Figure 1 in Trost corresponds to the
claimed strobe signal.
At the same time as recognizing at the bottom of page 8 of
appellants’ brief that the examiner has found correspondence
in Trost for all the subject matter of the appealed claims,
appellants assert at the bottom of page 9 of the brief that the
examiner’s identification of the various columns and portions of
figures in the statement of the rejection is insufficient. The
examiner’s approach is conventional in setting forth the state-
ment of the rejection and appellants’ comments at the bottom of
page 9 and the top of page 10 of the brief are misplaced since
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007