Appeal No. 96-1319
Application 07/934,982
The examiner relies on the following references:
Nusinov et al. (Nusinov) 4,654,789 Mar. 31, 1987
Witt et al. (Witt) 4,731,737 Mar. 15, 1988
Nicoud, “Video RAMs: Structure and Applications,” IEEE Micro, February 1988, pages 8-
27.
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness
the examiner offers Nicoud in view of Witt and Nusinov.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make reference
to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching
our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s
answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 1, 4-7 and 9-16. We reach
the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 2, 3 and 8. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007