Appeal No. 2001-2638
Application 09/201,214
not described within the patent. Despite the fact that there is
absolutely no discussion of how the read/write Qs of Kaiser
operate, the examiner selects memory controllers from Panwar or
Abramson to replace the read/write Qs of Kaiser. There is
nothing within the applied prior art to suggest that the
controllers of Panwar or Abramson could or should replace the
controller of Kaiser. In addition, the memory controllers of
Panwar and Abramson are used to control memory read/write
requests between a data processor and a memory. There is no
suggestion within Panwar or Abramson that their memory
controllers should be used in the manner recited in claim 1 for
communication of data between the data processor and external
devices. The examiner’s assertion that it would clearly have
been obvious to use the store buffer of a memory controller in
this type of communication is based on nothing except the
examiner’s bare opinion and a need to reconstruct the claimed
invention. While there may be evidence to support the
obviousness of the claimed invention, the examiner has not
provided the evidence which is needed to support the examiner’s
rejection.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007