Appeal No. 1997-1636 Page 9
Application No. 08/204,996
Lawton teaches a two-dimensional array 5 of processing
cells 10, each denoted in Figure 1 by the letter “P.” Col. 3,
ll. 20-22. Either the columns or the rows of the array would
have suggested the “plurality of layers” as claimed. Figure 1
shows that each row or column includes at least six of the
processing cells. Each cell has interconnections with its
four neighboring cells. Id. at ll. 22-26. Specifically,
Figure 2 shows a Western connection 32, an Eastern connection
34, a Northern connection 36, and a Southern connection 38 for
each cell. These processing cells with their interconnections
would have suggested the “dual ported processors” as claimed.
Second, the appellants argue, “The references do not
describe ‘a plurality of busses, each bus supervised by a
supervisory processor’ with the processors connected to the
busses as set forth in the claim.” (Appeal Br. at 8.) The
examiner replies, “Lawton discloses a plurality of lines, each
having a supervisory processor ....” (Examiner’s Answer at 6.)
She adds, “Nogi does show the processors interconnected by
buses ....” (Id.) We agree with the examiner.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007