Appeal No. 1998-1343
Application No. 08/154,695
rejection of claim 1 in the Brief and Reply Brief in addition
to arguments set forth in the Supplemental Reply Brief now
apply to the rejection of claim 6.
Only two arguments in the Brief and Reply Brief are
directed to limitations that appear in the present claims on
appeal. First, appellant contends (Brief, pages 4-5 and 9-10,
Reply Brief, pages 5-6) that Diehl discloses a data output
control signal, OEAB, which is generated by the controller
108, not by the central processing unit (CPU), and that
Diehl's CPU does not inherently generate a data output control
signal. Appellant's sole argument in the Supplemental Reply
Brief repeats and further explains this position (page 5).
Accordingly, we will refer primarily to the Supplemental Reply
Brief regarding the details of this argument. Second,
appellant argues (Brief, pages 5-6, Reply Brief, page 7) that
since Diehl does not show the data output control signal, one
cannot determine whether the address extension signals
(IAddr[2]) alternately have first and second logic states
during a generating period of the data output control signal.
Arguments that could have been made but were not presented in
the briefs are considered waived. See 37 CFR
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007