Appeal No. 1997-1636 Page 20
Application No. 08/204,996
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, the appellants argue, “claim 14 is a
fortiori patentable because neither Lawton or [sic] Nogi
discuss [sic] the loading of blocks of data . . . in duplicate
....” (Appeal Br. at 9.) The examiner replies, “Lawton
discloses ... loading incoming data sequentially ....” (Paper
13 at 4.) We agree with the appellants.
Claim 14 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitation: “loading to each of said respective processors a
copy of a block of data which duplicates a block of data
loaded into another processor.” The examiner fails to show a
teaching or suggestion of this limitation in the prior art.
Although Lawton teaches “[a] sequence of operations, including
transfer between neighboring cells ...,” col. 4, ll. 6-7, the
reference does not teach loading duplicate data. Nogi does
not cure this deficiency.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007