Appeal No. 2000-0372
Application No. 08/421,338
On its face, the examiner has failed to present a prima facie case of obviousness
of the claimed subject matter since many patentably distinct inventions perform the “same
function.” However, the particular mechanism by which that function is performed may
patentably distinguish over other devices performing the same function in a different and
unobvious manner. Thus, it is the examiner’s burden to show that the claimed cascaded
memories are taught or suggested by either Stewart or Dujari or the combination thereof.
Claim 1 calls for, inter alia, a plurality of cascaded random access memories. In
each memory is stored “p-bit pointers” with each pointer being different from the others
and being assigned one input value. The means for sequentially addressing and reading
the random access memories does so by addressing a first memory with a part including
a number n1 of bits of the input value and each one of the next memories being addressed
is addressed with a pointer read from the preceding memory concatenated with a part
including a number ni of bits of the input value, with ni being equal to or lower than n-n1.
We find nothing in the applied references which suggests such cascaded random access
memories or the addressing scheme claimed. We agree with appellants that since
“neither the structure or operation of the...RAM TABLES 8 is described by Stewart, the
assignment of any physical and/or functional attributes to it would amount to no more than
speculation” [principal brief-page 6]. A conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103
cannot be based on speculation.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007