Appeal No. 1997-3839
Application No. 08/120,144
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's
Answer (Paper No. 19, mailed Aug. 5, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellants’ Brief (Paper No. 18, filed Oct. 31, 1996) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
CLAIMS 1, 3 AND 4
Appellants argue that “[a]fter evaluating the volatile memory for the predetermined
data, the device initializes 'all locations of the volatile memory when the predetermined
data is not present', and initializes 'only predetermined locations of the volatile memory
when the predetermined data is present.’” (See Brief at page 3.)
Further, appellants argue that “there is no teaching or suggestion that only a portion of the
volatile memory is initialized [in Hamilton].” (See Brief at page 4.) We agree with
appellants.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007