Appeal No. 96-0635
Application 08/132,410
memory in such a manner was well-known in the art, and the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to reconfigure the Day memory in the manner recited in
claim 9 [final rejection,
pages 3-4].
Appellants respond in the brief that the first and
second buffers as recited in claim 9 are not taught or
suggested by the system of Day as admitted by the examiner
[brief, pages 3-4]. The examiner responds to appellants’
argument by asserting that appellants have ignored the level
of skill in the art. The examiner also reiterated his
position that a bifurcated control store would have been
obvious to the artisan at the time the invention was made.
The examiner makes reference to Johnson here as evidence that
a bifurcated control store was known in the art [answer, pages
4-5]. Appellants note that Johnson was not applied in the
final rejection, and even if Johnson’s teachings were
considered, Johnson does not suggest reloading instructions
into the permanent part of the control store [reply brief].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007