Appeal No. 1999-2295
Application No. 08/418,797
memories and independent processor accessing, respectively.
According to the Examiner (Answer, pages 6 and 7), the skilled
artisan would have been motivated and found it obvious to modify
Koufopavlou with Chao and Walp to achieve better control of
Koufopavlou’s memory management system.
In response, Appellant asserts a lack of establishment by
the Examiner of a prima facie case of obviousness. Appellant
points out (Brief, page 7; Reply Brief, page 2) that the Examiner
has relied on the Figure 9 embodiment of Chao, which utilizes
only a single processor, for a teaching of independent head and
tail pointer memories. Appellant contends, however, that the
Examiner has disregarded the disclosure of the embodiment
described with regard to Figure 11 of Chao which utilizes two
independent processors. In Appellant’s view, the teaching
provided to the skilled artisan by the Figure 11 embodiment of
Chao is that, contrary to the appealed claims, when plural
independent processor are utilized in a buffer queue system, the
concept of separate head and tail pointer memories is abandoned
in favor of a priority sequencer arrangement.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007