Appeal No. 1998-1506
Application No. 08/302,695
Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Melton.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed August 8, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 14, filed April 14, 1997) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 16,
filed October 8, 1997) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art reference, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 5.
Claim 1 requires, in pertinent part, a plurality of
memory banks and a "means for transforming the main address
(AP) into a first local address in a first one of the memory
banks in accordance with a first predetermined law ... and ...
into a second local address in a second one of the memory
banks in accordance with a second predetermined law."
Appellant contends (Brief, page 8) that "Melton uses a single
law to transform a main address into a single local address
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007