Appeal No. 96-1714
Application 08/073,911
sustain the rejection of Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9.
Claim 8
According to the examiner, Rudy discloses the claimed subject matter, presumably because
there is an input permutation memory 50 and output permutation memory 78 that may well map to the
same respective locations in first and second memory blocks. Without more reasoning from the
examiner, we are unable to assume the predicted and actual results do in fact map to the same relative
location. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites a method including the step of selecting at least one bit, but less than all bits,
from two address fields while selecting all of the bits from two other fields. The Appeal Brief argues
that the examiner never addressed that limitation. The examiner’s Answer fails to address the limitation
or appellant’s argument. Upon our own review of Rudy, with no guidance from the examiner, we do
not immediately see where the limitation is disclosed.
Because the examiner did not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness for Claim 10, we will
not sustain the rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007