Appeal No. 1998-3424
Application No. 08/315,792
and full conditions and “do not address the improvements claimed.” However, appellant
does not point out the perceived “improvements claimed” nor does appellant recite
specific claim language on which the argument relies. Still further, even if Ward does,
indeed, disclose what appellant contends as “the operation of normal FIFO registers,”
appellant has not explained how or why those “normal” operations fail to read on the
broad claim language.
With regard to the erasing operation, appellant agrees [brie f-page 6] that when a
FIFO is erased, it is appropriate that the read and write pointers point to the same address,
as in Ward, for example. Appellant queries, however, as to “How do you get there”?
While appellant strenuously contends that setting the pointers to the same address is “not
sufficient” and that there “must be affirmative steps taken to prevent the transitions,”
appellant never identifies the particular claim language on which he relies for these
“affirmative steps.” Where, for example, are these “affirmative steps” in claim 1 which
distinguish over that disclosed by either of the references?
Appellant contends [brief-page 7] that neither Ward nor McClure contains “the
structure need [sic, needed] to achieve the functions claimed. But, aga in, appellant fails
to identify the claimed structure relied upon for patentability.
Since, in our view, the examiner has set forth a prima facie case of anticipation
which has not been successfully rebutted by appellant, the examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 5-17 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by either one of Ward or
McClure is sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007