Appeal No. 95-4096
Application No. 08/188,660
The examiner rejects the claims as being “functional” and
not being “supported by recitation of sufficient structure to
warrant the presence of the functional language” [answer- page
3]. We disagree.
We note that the examiner cites MPEP 706.03(c) as
authority for a rejection based on claims being “functional.”
Reference to this section of the MPEP, however, indicates that
the section refers to rejections under the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. 112 which would include lack of best mode, written
description and enablement problems. There is nothing therein
giving the examiner authority to reject a claim as being
“functional.”
In any event, our review of instant claims 2 through 4
reveals nothing therein which would be considered indefinite
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The
claims recite the general structure which comprises a shared
memory multiprocessor system, such as a main memory, a
plurality of processors, I/O devices and cache memories. The
claims further recite a packet switched bus coupled to the
main memory and to the cache memories for transferring
commands, memory addresses and data between the memories in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007