Appeal No. 1998-2712
Application No. 08/478,429
Claims 1 and 3-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Szczepanek and Phelps, taken together. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102/103 as anticipated by or, in the alternative, obvious over, Phelps.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the alternative rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103, the examiner
contends that Phelps shows a CAM where there are N memory cells per row in the RAM
and M in the CAM that are all accessed and compared at the same time due to the
common access gate features 51 and 52. It is contended that Phelps teaches a memory
to be accessed and compared one row at a time and that Phelps’ latch reads on the
claimed register. The examiner further contends that it is inherent “that all memory arrays
and rows and bits in the memory array has ‘...an identifying address,’ otherwise the data
could not be accessed and thus would be worthless” [answer-page 3]. The step of “storing
the identifying address” is common to all CAMs,
contends the examiner. The examiner concludes by indicating that if Phelps’ latch is not a
“register,” as claimed, then it would have been obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
103, to substitute any equivalent type of register for the latch.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007