Appeal No. 1997-3839
Application No. 08/120,144
Furthermore, the examiner has not provided clear correspondence in the
specification to support the position maintained by the examiner that Hamilton clearly
anticipates the language in claim 1. From our review of Hamilton and by closely reviewing
the portions of Hamilton cited by the examiner (see Answer at page 4), we find that
Hamilton teaches a verification of integrity of the volatile memory after a reset
mode/condition is indicated, and if the data is corrupted, the memory is initialized. If the
data is not corrupted, the memory is not initialized. (See Summary of the Invention at col.
2.) We do not find any clear support for the examiner’s statement that “Hamilton et al.
teach the feature of initializing only a portion of a volatile memory.” (See Answer at page
3.) The examiner relies upon a reset condition initializing the memory and if the validity of
the memory is valid then the memory is initialized “as-is” to meet the language of claim 1.
(See Answer at page 4.) We disagree with the examiner. The examiner’s interpretation of
the “initializing” limitation is inconsistent. Inaction with respect to the memory is not the
same function as initializing portions of the memory as recited in the language of claim 1.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent
claims 2-4.
CLAIMS 5-12
Before addressing the examiner's rejections based upon prior art, it is an essential
prerequisite that the claimed subject matter be fully understood. Analysis of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007