Appeal No. 95-3889
Application 08/070,296
(Fed. Cir. 1990). With respect to independent claims 1 and 6,
appellant is correct that Loo does not disclose a multi-port RAM.
With respect to the invention of Loo, at column 4, lines 39-42, it
is disclosed that RAM memory 14 acts as a three-port memory. At
column 1, lines 54-56, under SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION, Loo refers
to his memory as a single-port memory. The fact that Loo’s single-
port RAM can be made to act like a multi-port RAM does not make it
a multi-port RAM. Structurally, it is still a single-port RAM.
Still further with respect to claims 1 and 6, appellant is
correct that Loo does not disclose simultaneous read and write
operations (claim 1) or that such operations occur at the same
time (claim 6). Although phases of instructions N, N+1 and N+2
overlap and are simultaneous, as illustrated in Figure 3 of Loo,
and each phase includes both read and write functions, at any
given time Loo is performing simultaneous write operations or
simultaneous read operations. There are no simultaneous read and
write operations. This is illustrated by the figure attached to
appellant’s reply brief, which figure we acknowledge as an
accurate representation of a combination of Loo’s Figures 3 and 4.
The attached figure shows that the read and write operations to
the RAM occur at different times.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007