Appeal No. 1997-0637
Application 08/265,965
list start address to the location indicated by said next
available address” (claim 15) and “writing the data and said .
. . start address to one of said . . . addresses in a single
write cycle” (claim 20). Therefore, we also do not sustain
the anticipation rejection of claims 8, 15 and 20. Since the
dependent claims have at least the limitation of the
respective independent claims above, the anticipation
rejection of dependent claims 2 to 7, 9 to 14 and 16 to 19
over Livay is also not sustained.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 to 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007