Appeal No. 1998-3424
Application No. 08/315,792
transitions are prevented under either of the two circumstances discussed in claims 1 and
5. Independent claim 13 is basically an apparatus counterpart to method claim 8 wherein
transitions are prevented under either of the two recited circumstances. Independent
claim 17 is similar to claim 1 in that it requires setting a write pointer value equal to the
stored reader pointer value after reading a last unread value in response to reception of a
read command if the read command is received without a corresponding reception of the
write command. Independent claim 22 requires the controller changing the write pointer
value to equal the read pointer value after execution of a first read signal if the number of
entries equals one and a corresponding write signal is not received during reception of the
first read signal.
Thus, the instant claimed subject matter is directed to controlling the output of the
FIFO so no transitions occur at the output of the device under various conditions. The
examiner has pointed to sections within Ward and McClure which the exa miner alleges
meet the various control portions of the instant claims. In Ward, the examiner points to
column 1, lines 41-48 and column 8, lines 55-57. With regard to McClure, the examiner
identifies column 2, lines 42-54 , column 3, lines 54-63 and column 5, lines 9-12.
Appellant argues that neither Ward nor McClure recognizes the problems solved
by appellant and that neither of the references prevents transitions on the output under the
circumstances specified in the claims.
We agree with the examiner and refer to the reasoning set forth at pages 2-9 of
Paper No 9. Clearly, Ward is concerned with a similar problem as is appellant. Column
2, lines 19-23 of Ward recites that a disadvantage of the prior art is the large amount of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007