Appeal No. 2000-0064
Application 08/625,241
33 and, therefore, the processing means are equivalent [answer,
pages 11-14].
Appellants respond that the communication link in Fleming
is not a bus as that term should be interpreted. Appellants
challenge the examiner’s assertion that this question was decided
in the previous Board decision. Appellants note that the claim
identified in the previous decision was not, in fact, the claim
which was on appeal. Appellants argue that the previous Board
decision did not state that the processing and transferring steps
in Fleming occurred in parallel, but rather, that one step
occurred before the other. Appellants also respond that merely
because parallel processing was known does not automatically mean
that one would have been motivated to use parallel processing in
a specific application. Appellants challenge the propriety of
the Official Notice taken by the examiner. Finally, appellants
argue that the Fleming and Stone references do not have the
structural equivalent of the single processor means disclosed in
their specification [reply brief].
We agree with the arguments presented by appellants in
the briefs. First, we note that the two key features argued by
appellants on this appeal were not considered in the previous
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007