Appeal No. 96-1152
Application 08/001,091
not the device selection signal itself, as
apparently asserted by the Examiner, but the
device that is selected by the selection
signal. In Baker, the 8 device selection
signals (which Applicants have assumed are
decoded from the 3-bit signal BCI_SCN[2:0])
are used to select one of a plurality of
devices each having a data width that is much
larger than the data width of the bus
BI_D[31:0]. This is contrary to the
requirements specified in claims 1 and 6 that
"the data width of each device is less than
or equal to the data bus width." Therefore,
Baker does not teach or suggest selection of
a device that has a data width less than or
equal to the data bus width.
BCI_SCN signals outputted from the circuit in Fig. 24 in Baker do
appear to be 3 binary bit positions as expressed at the top four
lines of col. 78 of Baker as they relate to the showing in Fig.
25.
Because we find that the recitations of the various features
in each independent claim 1, 6 and 10 on appeal are much more
specific than those asserted from the teachings and showings the
examiner has found to correspond in Baker and because we find
that the claims would not have been otherwise obvious over those
teachings and showings identified by the examiner in Baker, we
reverse the rejection of claims 1 to 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007