Appeal No. 2002-0590
Application No. 09/213,924
claim 1 recites that the buses facilitate transfer of data from the first memory to the
memory controller and from the memory controller to the first memory. We find no
teaching in Niu that the two buses are used to facilitate the transfers between the same
memory and same memory controller. Appellant argues that Niu has “nothing to do with
memory systems where data is transmitted between a memory controller and memory
devices.” (See brief at page 5.) We agree with appellant. While Niu teaches the
storage of information in a memory, we do not find that it is a “memory system” as
recited in the claims. While the system of Niu is in a data processing system and has
memory, we agree with appellant (brief at pages 5-6) that it would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to look to these
general teachings of Niu to modify the control of the memory system of Gasbarro which
is all within the same system. Therefore, we disagree with the examiner’s line of
reasoning in the statement of motivation to combine the teachings (final rejection at
page 4), and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent
claims 2-17. Independent claims 18, 30, and 38 contain similar limitations not taught or
fairly suggested by the combination of Gasbarro and Niu, and we cannot sustain the
rejections thereof and their dependent claims.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007