Appeal No. 1996-2369 Page 8
Application No. 08/191,723
address data is [sic] ‘corrected’.” (Id.) The appellants
conclude their argument as follows.
[T]he Examiner has failed to provide any reasonable
basis as to why the artisan would have found it
obvious to modify that which is acknowledged to be
prior art in Figures 1 through 3 in such a manner as
to arrive at that which is required in claim 1
including a "data regulating means" and a "detecting
means" .... (Appeal Br. at 18.)
The examiner replies, “the difference between Appellant's
device and the prior art is software and hardware. One can
combine two address data bits by hardware as Appellant can,
the software of prior art (figures 1-3) can do the same
function combining two address data bits as Appellant's
device.” (Examiner’s Answer at 12.) We agree with the
appellants.
Independent claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the
following limitations:
data regulating means which receive the address
data of the first number of bits and which output
address data of a second number of regulated bits
comprising the first number of bits which have been
logically combined with a predetermined number of
extended bits, wherein when the address data of the
first number of bits are incorrect and are for a
display position outside the addresses in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007