Appeal No. 1997-4314 Page 6
Application No. 08/155,332
environments would clearly have supplied data over a
peripheral bus to an input port
With regard to claims 10 and 11, appellants contend that
these claims are more specific as to the programmability
feature. We agree. With regard to claim 10, Takasaki clearly
does not suggest anything related to changing the block size
value “in response to a mode command” because LBN register 51
does not appear to be “programmable” in that sense. However,
we disagree with appellants as to claim 11 since this claim
merely calls for broadly “programming” the block length value
into the input port. As stated supra, the setting of a value
into LBN register 51 is a form of “programming” and it would
have been clear to artisans that this is to be done through
some type of “input port.”
Since appellants do not specifically argue any other
claims, the examiner’s decision is affirmed as to claims 1
through 6, 8, 9 and 11 but is reversed as to claim 10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007