Appeal No. 96-1714
Application 08/073,911
Claim 5
We will sustain the rejection of Claim 5 for the reasons set forth by the examiner, amplified as
follows.
Claim 5 relates to a method for using a computer to simulate a memory device. The examiner
sets forth a detailed correspondence of the claimed steps to Rudy, saying that Rudy discloses the
invention substantially as claimed. Examiner’s Answer at 3-4.
Appellant argues that the translating step is not disclosed by Rudy. Appeal Brief at 9.
However, as the examiner points out, Rudy discloses an input permutation memory that stores
translations between a physical bus address 46 and a mapped bus address 50. Appellant did not file
any reply brief to respond to the examiner’s explanation. We agree with the examiner.
Appellant also argues that Rudy fails to disclose the step of storing a location of a memory cell.
Appeal Brief at 11. However, Rudy stores within the memory model the address of such a location.
Column 7, lines 21-42; Figure 10B.
Therefore, Rudy fully discloses the method recited by Claim 5 and we will sustain the rejection.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9
Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9 stand or fall with Claim 5 because appellants have presented no
arguments for the separate patentability of those claims under 37 CFR § 1.192. Therefore, we will
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007