Appeal No. 1997-3818
Application 08/208,517
(Fig. 3). We note that appel- lants, in responding to the
now-withdrawn § 112 rejection, concede that
the technique of sampling inputs at a
predetermined time as recited in claims 1,
11, 19 and 28 is well known in the art. It
is known in the art to capture the state of
a particular input at a particular time for
use. The Appellants respectfully submit
that this technique is so well known in the
art that it does not require further
elaboration here. [Brief at 6.]
As for point (b), i.e., sampling the inputs "at a
predetermined time in a memory cycle," appellants do not
argue, and we do not believe, that the phrase "a memory cycle"
must be construed to mean "every memory cycle." Thus, the
limitation at issue, when broadly construed, is broad enough
to read on sampling the memory size signals in Bowater as
modified above during a single memory cycle. Appellants have
not explained why it would have been unobvious from Grants,
which discloses sampling during every memory cycle, to sample
the memory size inputs at a predetermined time in at least one
memory cycle.
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007