Appeal No. 1999-0041
Application 08/475,669
The examiner asserts, “[f]or ‘double word reflecting,’
please see James, Page 12, ‘Glossary of Terms’ and Figures 8-
10.” (Examiner’s Answer at 7.) The appellants argue, “James,
then, cannot fairly be said to teach, disclose, or suggest
double word reflection.” (Appeal Br. at 6.)
Claims 19 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: “attempting to access data contained in memory,
... said attempting step being performed by a task of a
particular endian type; double word reflecting said data when
said data's particular endian type is found not to be the same
as that of said task ....” Accordingly, the claim requires
double word reflecting data when the data's particular endian
type is found not to be the same as that of a task attempting
to access the data.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the limitations in the prior art of record. Here, neither the
Glossary of Terms nor the Figures 8-10 relied on by the
examiner mention, let alone teach double word reflecting data.
Furthermore, the description of the Figures merely explains
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007