Appeal No. 2000-0064
Application 08/625,241
argue that the portion of Stone relied on by the examiner does
not support the parallel processing and transferring of
information as claimed. With respect to claims 31 and 32,
appellants additionally argue that the applied prior art does not
teach or suggest the first and second registers as claimed. With
respect to claim 33, appellants additionally argue that the
examiner has failed to properly apply a “means-plus-function”
analysis to this claim [brief, pages 5-12].
The examiner responds that the first bus in the claimed
invention corresponds to the communication link in Fleming. The
examiner notes that the claim language on appeal now is similar
to claim language considered by the Board in a previous decision.
The examiner also responds that the processing and transferring
steps in Fleming are performed in parallel. The examiner also
notes that Stone teaches that parallel processing was well known.
With respect to claims 31 and 32, the examiner takes Official
Notice that registers for storing addresses were well known, and
the examiner cites a Motorola manual for support of this
position. With respect to claim 33, the examiner responds that
Fleming in view of Stone discloses the same processing as claim
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007