Appeal No. 1997-3240
Application 08/176,940
claims 9 through 12, which depend from and further limit claim
8, also have a combination claim format. Therefore,
apparatus claims 13 through 17 do properly recite an apparatus
for performing the multiple process steps of base claims 8
through 12 respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection of claims 13 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1 through 4, 8,
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over McEntee, Appellant, on page
16 of the brief, argues that McEntee does not teach a means
for simultaneously entering a code word at a plurality of
addresses for each of a plurality of encoding levels.
Appellant, on page 19 of the brief, further points out that
McEntee’s disclosure lacks any means that is the same as or
equivalent to Appellant’s structure of register arrays for
different encoding levels. Additionally, Appellant, on pages
20 through 22, outlines the structure corresponding to the
means for simultaneously entering of code words. Appellant
adds that McEntee is merely concerned with copying an object,
cell by cell, from “oldspace” to “newspace” without using
register arrays for simultaneous entry of any part of the
memory object at a plurality of addresses.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007