Appeal No. 97-0801
Application 08/168,087
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S.
1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner has indicated how he reads claims 1 and 5 on the disclosure of Shen [answer,
pages 3-4]. Appellants respond that Shen does not disclose that “each predetermined length of the
picture data is written into only one of the plurality of banks, and the picture data is continuously read
from the plurality of banks in alternation” as recited in claims 1 and 5 because Shen stores the same
data in both data banks [brief, page 4]. The examiner responds that the storing of data in only one of
the data banks is inherent in the operation of Shen [answer, page 9]. Appellant disputes this assertion
of the examiner [brief, pages 5-6].
At the outset, we note that Shen discloses only briefly a random access memory having dual
banks as part of the description of the prior art shown in Figure 2. Shen’s invention is directed to the
elimination of these dual banks and to the use of a single memory array. Therefore, the only portion of
Shen’s disclosure which relates to the plurality of banks as recited in independent claim 1 is the
discussion of the prior art as shown in Shen’s Figure 2.
In describing this prior art, Shen states that the “same data u is stored both in memory bank 18a
and 18b. This allows the data to be accessed independently” [column 5, lines 50-52]. Thus, Shen
clearly does not meet the recitation of claim 1 that the data is written into only one of the data banks.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007