Appeal No. 2003-0450
Application 09/394,039
produce a similar result as delaying the operand data, appellants
argue that this amounts to nothing more than personal conclusions
unsupported by facts (RBr7-8).
As recognized by the examiner (at EA6), Kaneko does not
delay the address, but delays the data. Thus, Kaneko fails to
disclose the claimed subject matter. The examiner states that
delaying the data rather than the address will yield the same
result (EA6). This is not the test for obviousness because
achieving the same result by different means may well be an
unobvious improvement. Furthermore, Kaneko does not produce the
same results as appellants' invention. Kaneko reads out data
from an address a0 and writes it to an address a 0+n (col. 1,
line 31), that is, it shifts the address of the read-out data
(col. 1, lines 66-67). Appellants' invention delays the address
for a write for a predetermined number of clock cycles from a
read address to coincide with write data, so that write
modification is carried out to the same original address
(specification, lines 20-21). Although appellants' invention
could be used to shift the address of the read-out data, and
delaying the write data by a time so that it is written to the
same address that was read out is not claimed, it is a fact that
the same thing is not going on in appellants' invention as in
Kaneko because the claimed invention shifts address data.
Figures 4B and 4C of Hyatt relied on by the examiner do not show
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007