Appeal No. 1998-3424
Application No. 08/315,792
Similarly, with regard to McClure as it applies to independent claims 1, 5, 8, 13
and 17, the examiner has indicated portions of this reference which are considered to
meet the claim limitations. For example, the examiner points to column 2, lines 42-45,
reciting that
The empty and full flags are somewhat easier to generate because
once the matching condition is met, signifying empty for example,
all subsequent reads are disabled until a valid write is completed.
This recitation appears to meet the output control limitations set forth in the
instant claims.
With regard to independent claim 22, the examiner explains the applicability of
Ward at pages 2-3 of Paper No. 9 and the applicability of McClure at page 9 of Paper No.
9. Yet, appellant’s response [page 12 of the brief] is merely to reiterate what is recited by
the claim and then to merely state that this “is not shown by either of the references.”
This is not a persuasive or an adequate argument since it does not point out the alleged
errors in the examiner’s position. Similarly, while appellant has chosen to have each
claim stand on its own merits, the only “arguments” presented against the rejection of the
claims is to reiterate the claim language and repetitively state that the references do not
show the particular feature recited without pointing out the alleged errors in the
examiner’s position. Since the examiner has presented a prima facie case of anticipation,
in our view, the mere statement by appellant that the references do not disclose or show
the recited limitations is not a persuasive argument to overcome the prima facie case.
At pages 5-6 of the brief, appellant describes the operation of Ward and then
contends that the operations of Ward are “normal FIFO registers” operations under empty
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007