Appeal No. 1999-2375
Application No. 08/892,822
Appellants argue that there is no suggestion to combine the teachings of the prior
art references at pages 8-11 of the brief. We have addressed this argument with respect
to the individual groups of claims.
Appellants argue the teachings of the references individually at page 11 of the brief.
Since these arguments do not consider the combination of teachings, these arguments are
not persuasive. Appellants argue that decompression is only done when space is
available. (See brief at page 11.) Again, we find no support in the language of the
independent claims for this argument. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that one of the most distinguishing features of the appellants’ innovation
is the reliance of the invention on functional organization, and not address organization.
(See brief at page 11.) We find no support for this argument in the language of the
independent claims; therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Appellants argue that they
have set forth “the uniquely packed BIOS” and have resulted in time and cost savings.
(See brief at page 12.) Again, we find no support for these arguments in the language of
the independent claims; therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007