Appeal No. 1998-2712
Application No. 08/478,429
that independent claim 15 does not even require a single comparator or comparison.
With regard to the first alleged difference concerning a register for storing an input
value with the same number of bits as each memory row, we disagree for the reasons set
forth in our previous decision of December 15, 1993, in Appeal No. 93-3880. At pages 4-
5 of that decision, we explained that while Szczepanek contains the statement that the
“length of a group of data being considerably less than that of a row” [column 4, lines 57-
58], this is but one example set forth by Szczepanek. Since column 4, lines 61-62, of the
reference states that “[a]lternatively a group may be larger or smaller than 1 byte,” this
would have suggested to the artisan that the input value may very well be the same length
as the length of a row in memory. In fact, if one is comparing an input value with a row in
memory, the artisan would have found it preferable to compare values of the same length.
With regard to the third alleged difference concerning a means for storing each row
address in the memory containing data matching the input value, we agree with
appellant that neither Szczepanek nor Phelps teaches or suggests this limitation and, even
assuming, arguendo, that the references are combinable, this claimed limitation is not met.
The examiner’s response to this third argument is to point to page 6, lines 2-8, of
our earlier decision. We stated thereat that the artisan would have understood that a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007