Appeal No. 1999-0041
Application 08/475,669
the difference between the big endian and little endian
formats. P. 14. Relying on Undy to teach other features,
(Examiner's Answer at 6-7), the examiner fails to allege, let
alone show, that the reference cures the deficiency of James.
Because James’ Glossary and Figures 8-10 fail to mention
double word reflecting, we are not persuaded that teachings
from the prior art would have suggested the limitations of
“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 ....” Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim
19 as being obvious over Undy in view of James.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007