Appeal No. 1996-1097
Application 08/058,110
combustion engine ignition system" (FR4; EA4). An objective
reading of the rejection shows that the Examiner has taken
the mention of the word "address" to meet all of the
disputed claim limitations. While it is true that the
memory modules 30 through 33 in Jenkins access data by
address on the address (A) bus, this says nothing about
organizing similar data of plural sets with a constant
address offset. Nor does the mere teaching of an address
suggest using an indexed addressing mode and the constant
address offset such that only a single program routine is
required. The Examiner glosses over these limitations
without any analysis in the statement of the rejection. The
Examiner expressly acknowledges (EA8) Appellants' argument
that Jenkins "fails to disclose either the indexed
addressing mode and constant address offset feature" (Br5),
but then does not address how the memory arrangement of
Jenkins satisfies these specific limitations. The Examiner
has manifestly failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. We have independently considered the teachings
of Jenkins and find that it does not teach storing sets of
data with similar data of the sets at a constant address
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007