Appeal No. 1998-1800
Application No. 08/430,453
826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); W.L. Gore & Assocs. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550, 220 USPQ 303, 311 (Fed.
Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
In order for us to sustain the Examiner’s position we
would, at the very least, have to completely divorce Olson’s
description of the split-mode embodiment illustrated in
Figures 4 and 5 from the remainder of the Olson disclosure.
Such an approach, however, would be directly contrary to the
express disclosure of Olson. Olson describes the Figure 4
split-mode embodiment as a modification of the Figure 1
circuit and, in describing the
address decode circuit 43a, discloses that it is identical to
the address decode circuit 43 of Figure 1 except for an
additional output line to a split-mode control register 97.
In our view, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this
portion of Olson is that the write operation in the split-mode
embodiment, which is never discussed by Olson, must be
identical to the write operation specifically described in
Figure 3 in relation to the operation of the Figure 1
circuitry. This write operation, illustrated in the right
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007