Appeal No. 95-3889
Application 08/070,296
Because independent claim 1 is not anticipated by Loo, claims
2, 3 and 5, which depend therefrom, are not anticipated by Loo.
The Rejection of Claims 9 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Because claims 9 and 10 depend from claims 5 and 6,
respectively, and appellant’s prior art admissions on pages 1-5 of
the specification have not been shown to include the deficiencies
of Loo discussed above, the rejection of these claims will not be
sustained.
The Rejection of Claims 7, 8 and 11
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In his rejection of these claims, the examiner has not shown
that the combined prior art applied against the claims includes
the claim requirements of 1.) “a data register for holding data
written to said at least one multi-port RAM;” and 2.) that “one of
data read from the at least one multi-port RAM and a content of
said data register is selected and input to an operation circuit
in accordance with the address match signal from said address
comparator and the data register valid signal at the same time a
data is stored in said at least one multi-port RAM.” Nor has it
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007