Appeal No. 1997-1925
Application No. 08/465,315
ROM and said RAM and all devices in the signal processing apparatus, and
for transferring the signal procedures from the ROM to the RAM and
enabling the operation of said digital signal processor according to the
signal procedures transferred from said ROM and stored in said RAM.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Culley 5,109,521 Apr. 28, 1992
Haymond 5,148,153 Sep. 15, 1992
Nickel et al. (Nickel) 5,295,178 Mar. 15, 1994
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Nickel in view of Culley. Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Haymond in view of Culley.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 30 , mailed Dec. 26, 1996), the first supplemental examiner's answer
(Paper No. 32, mailed Mar. 21, 1997) and the second supplemental examiner's answer
(Paper No. 34, mailed Jul. 8, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 29, filed Sep. 30, 1996), reply brief
(Paper No. 31, filed Jan. 15, 1997) and supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 33, filed May
21, 1997) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007