Appeal No. 2001-1352
Application 08/802,828
To the extent the art well recognizes the use of pointers for
storing and accessing memory in various data processing devices
is generally well known, the features recited in independent
claims 1 and 13 on appeal are much more specific than any
generalization that can reasonably be made on the basis of the
applied prior art. Neither the examiner's generalizations
nor our review of Bissonnette indicates that pointers were
generally used in the art to indicate a point in already dictated
speech where an insert is to be placed and the location in memory
where the insert is actually stored, both of which correlate to
the claimed first and second address signals.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting independent claims 1 and 13 on appeal is reversed.
According to the examiner's formulation of the various
rejections, the additional prior art is relied upon for different
features and not the disputed feature as appellant notes at page
6 of the brief. As such, the reversal is extended to the
respective dependent claims, and the additional prior art fails
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007