Appeal No. 1997-1925
Application No. 08/465,315
not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Nickel and Culley.
Haymond and Culley
The examiner relies upon Haymond to teach the controller processor and the DSP
as with theNickel reference as discussed above. (See brief at pages 8-9.) The examiner
cites to columns 2-4 and figure 3 of Haymond. The examiner acknowledges that Haymond
does not identify the memories or the transfer of processing instructions from one memory
to the other. (See answer at page 9.) Appellant argues that the examiner’s rejection is
based upon “conjecture.” (See brief at page 7.) We agree with appellant. Appellant
argues that “two memories would have to be provided for controlling the operation of the
DSP 42." (emphasis in original) in Haymond. Id. We have reviewed the portions of
Haymond that the examiner referenced, and as appellant argues, we do not find any
disclosure of the interaction between the two processors and the stored procedures to
provide for controlling the operation of the DSP 42. We also agree with appellant that
Haymond contains the same deficiency as discussed above with respect to Nickel.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-7.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007