Appeal No. 1998-1111
Application 08/539,513
depend from independent claim 11. Because a reference that
fails to anticipate a claim cannot anticipate a claim
dependent therefrom, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 2, 3, 5, 7-10, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Ferguson.
Claim 4, which stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
depends from independent claim 1. The Examiner does not
assert that Ferguson et al. suggests the subject matter we
find lacking in Ferguson, i.e., transferring control to an
input function for retrieving all input data into memory prior
to performing the data processing function and transferring
control to an output function for retrieving all output data
from memory prior to terminating the data processing function.
Because we find that Ferguson does not teach every element of
independent claim 1 from which claim 4 depends, and because
the Examiner does not advance Ferguson et al. as supplying the
elements missing from Ferguson, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Ferguson et al.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007