Appeal No. 1997-1636 Page 3
Application No. 08/204,996
of said plurality of busses constituting an output
bus,
one port of each processor of the first layer
connected to said input bus,
one port of each processor of a last layer
connected to said output bus,
and one or more intermediate busses connected to
one port of processors of a preceding layer and one
port of processors of a succeeding layer;
wherein incoming data can be allocated to
processors of a first layer and transferred
sequentially to processors of subsequent layers for
processing.
The references relied on in rejecting the claims follow:
Berlin, Jr. (Berlin) 4,428,048 Jan. 24, 1984
Nogi 4,514,807 Apr. 30,
1985
Anderson et al. (Anderson) 4,958,273 Sept. 18, 1990
Lawton 5,109,356 Apr. 28,
1992.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lawton in view of Nogi. (Paper
13 at 2.) Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Lawton in view of Nogi further in view of Berlin.
(Id. at 4.) Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Lawton in view of Nogi further in view
of Anderson. (Id. at 4-5.) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious “for the reasons set forth 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