Appeal No. 1996-4070
Application No. 08/367,930
attempting to address the claim language requiring
"...affixing a block identification to the message block
extracted..." (Claim 1 and similar recitations in the other
independent claims 3, 4, and 5) and recognizing a lack of
explicit teaching in Anderson of providing an identification
for an extracted message, offers two alternative approaches.
In the first, the Examiner suggests (Answer, page 6) the
obviousness to the skilled artisan of adding ID bits to the
extracted message to provide easier identification of the
message. Alternatively, the Examiner asserts that Anderson
provides for the affixing of ID information to the extracted
message block simply by virtue of the address associated with
the register in which the extracted message block is stored.
While Appellants have made several arguments in response,
the primary thrust of the arguments centers on the alleged
deficiency in any of the applied references in disclosing the
aforementioned extracted message block ID affixing feature.
Upon careful review of the applied prior art in light of
Appellants’ arguments, we are in agreement with Appellants’
stated position in the Briefs. In our view, the reasoning in
both of the Examiner’s approaches related to the claimed ID
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007